My opinion is that, if we are ever to get the full experience and undiminished glory of Shakespeare's living art, we need both a pronunciation as close as possible to that of his own time, based on the most exhaustive research of the most gifted linguists, combined with an insightful and intelligent delivery of the meaning of the text, from the most gifted and dedicated of actors. I also believe that a professional audio recording of one of the major plays is the preferred medium to begin the project. [I would, on a whim, start this work with _Richard III._ ]I do not, alas, expect this to happen in my lifetime.
00:00 Introduction 01:50 The chief basis of Crystal's reconstruction 03:08 Problems with reconstructing pronunciation by means of rhyme 05:04 John Hart 09:40 /ǝɪ/ (Price lexical set) 11:17 /ǝɪ/ (Happy lexical set) 14:59 Alexander Gil 18:45 /ǝɪ/ (Choice lexical set) 20:28 /ɤ/ (Strut and goose sets) 22:08 /ɛ/ (Face lexical set) 24:23 /ɐ/ (Nurse lexical set) 25:30 /ɑ/ 26:20 /ǝʊ/ (Mouth lexical set) 26:45 Letter r 28:37 Letter h 30:26 Conclusion 31:22 Proposed alternatives 33:05 Roger Lass 35:46 Elizabethan phoneticians 37:30 Pronunciation of words like day 39:51 Pronunciation of words like mate 40:24 Disagreements with Lass (short vowels /ɪ/ and /ʊ/) 45:02 Pronunciation of the schwa (/ə/) 47:52 Final conclusion
I can't find in Crystal's dictionary how "returne" and "mourne" rhyme in Dowland's song "Now o now I needes must part" .They have different pronunciations in his dictionary.
Yes, that is well observed; John Hart's spelling of turnd, with an implied vowel-pronunciation of /u/ or /ʊ/, would give rise to a much closer rhyme with mourn than would the pronunciation /tɐɹn/, which arises from Crystal's merging of the nurse lexical set under the sound /ɐ/. To this day, some people still pronounce mourn as /mʊən/ or /mʊɹn/.
Fantastic video! This must show how much my own view is subjective, but what you said about the letter "r" at 26:45 seems to imply an American sounding r to me at least. The thought of a dogs growl sounding like it is rolling an r seems rather silly to me(this is probably subjective). I wonder if Italians roll their r when imitating a dog growl. I would draw a distinction between hard r (American r, dog growl, throat snarl), soft r (British r, h sound), and rolled r (Italian r, tongue trill). But if the r is stated to be the same as in riputazione, then i guess thats that, unless there is variation. I wish Johnson would have been specific about which "other tongues" he was referring to. Another thought is that once the correct age appropriate pronunciations are generally agreed on, performers are known to make near rhymes actually rhyme by changing the sounds of one or both words, and this may need to be taken in to account. So even if lines and loins don't actually sound the same, the joke may have still been there(was it?) and so there may need to be a distinction between "original theatrical pronunciation", and "original correct pronunciation". Anyway, just food for thought, thanks so much for the video!
Thank you for your kind thoughts. What you say about the bending of pronunciation is, I think, a valid speculation. It would, I think, be a valid defence of a pun between the words “hour” and “whore” which Crystal alleges of the line “From hour to hour, we rot and rot” in As You Like It. I believe that pun also to be something of a stretch, because “hour” descends from Middle English /u:r/, while “whore” is descended from Middle English /oːr/, and so the sounds were likely to have developed differently in Shakespeare's day. But both sounds were, at least, back-vowels with lip-rounding, and therefore would have remained relatively connected in phonology. With respect, on the other hand, to line and loin, if, following John Hart, you take line to be /lɛin/ and loin to be /luin/ (also consonant with separate lineages in Middle English), then the linguistic difference between them was probably as great for Shakespeare as it is for us. The description of R as a dog’s letter is, as you say, open to interpretation, since people use the American R, or approximant, to imitate a dog also. The term “littera canina” originates in Latin, and it did, in that language at least, describe a trill which was thought to sound like a growling dog. When I was writing this essay, the strongest argument that I knew for the trilled or tapped R was that of onomatopoeias (as Shakespeare’s “Blow, winds and crack your cheeks” speech, which is so evidently written to sound harsh and rough); but if I had known of it I should like to have cited the research of A. Z. Foreman, who provides what is to me highly convincing linguistic evidence for the trill on the basis of primary sources describing speech (from a blog post called “Kökeritz Remodeled, The Problem and Promise of "Original Pronunciation"): “A trilled [r] for Southern English is witnessed in the 17th century by several quite clear articulatory descriptions of it, including John Wallis (1653), John Wilkins (1668), William Holder (1669), Christopher Cooper (1685). Even Sir Isaac Newton (yes, that Sir Isaac Newton of gravity-discovering fame) in his phonetic notes (datable to the 1660s) describes the English /r/ as characterized by "the quavering or jarring of the toungs end against the fore parte of palate." And Newton's description isn't even as good as it gets. Other 17th century phoneticians give far more detailed articulatory descriptions that afford no ambiguity. William Holder's Elements of Speech 1669) is a book primarily concerned with teaching deaf mutes to pronounce English, and in describing English /r/ gives a detailed and quite perceptive characterization of one defining feature of trills: directing airflow over an articulator so that it vibrates. Holder states that R is made "...by a Pervious [=non-occlusive] Appulse [=obstruction] of the end of the Tongue, with its edge to the Goums, The Tongue being held in that posture, onely by the force of the … Muscles, and not resting any where upon the Teeth; except onely touching them loosely, so as to close the passage of Breath every where by the sides, and conduct it to the end of the Tongue. And this with a strong Impulse of Breath vocalized, so as to cause a trembling and vibration of the whole Tongue; which vibration being slow, does not tune the voice, but make it jarred; the Tongue not resting but […] agitated by strong impulse of Breath" Virtually every available source for the 16th and 17th centuries with anything to say about English /r/ either implies or explicitly describes an apical trill (or at least non-approximant) for /r/ as normal. The few apparent exceptions are either hopelessly ambiguous (Robinson) or explicitly report trill-less speech as aberrant or a speech defect (Holder, Wilkens). Our best 18th century sources attest to continued trilled realizations among a minority of high-status London speakers. The alleged "difficulty" (Crystal 2016) of determining the nature of EModE /r/ is in part an artifact of scholarly unwillingness to believe what the actual sources say about the English known to them. It's also worth noting the complete absence of any mention of apical trills as a regionalism in this period. Many 16th and 17th century sources are eager to document and disparage various pronunciations as Scotticisms and Hibernisms, but Englishmen give no indication that Scottish, Irish, Welsh or Northern pronunciations of /r/ were at all peculiar to or distinctive before the 18th century. Even then the first reference by Defoe (1720) to an oddly pronounced Northern /r/ is to to uvular [ʀ]. From around the mid 1700s we have increasingly plentiful written testimony from Southern Englishmen as to the peculiar harshness of coda /r/ as pronounced by Irishmen, Welshmen, Scotsmen and Northern English speakers.”
@@ThomasWhichello Thank you for taking the time for such a detailed response with so many excellent sources! I am enjoying the blog post by A. Z. Foreman, I like how he starts with a chronology of the great vowel shift with some examples. The evidence for the rolled R is overwhelming, I did especially appreciate Newtons phonetic notes as a source. I still find it fascinating that descriptions such as "harsh" seem to apply to different sounds to different people. I imagine the reason I think a trill is perhaps "fancy" or "pretty" and an American /r/ is harsh is that while growing up it was the American /r/ that I was first introduced to and associated it with harsh noises, and the trill I perceived as new or foreign. Therefore the American /r/ that I naturally (and incorrectly) think of as a basic and harsh sound, was my go-to understanding of the description. I think this illustrates the value of quality sources, and the value of people like you taking the time and diligence to make sure we are not caught at a loss due to such biases. Thanks again, I hope you keep up the great work.
My opinion is that, if we are ever to get the full experience and undiminished glory of Shakespeare's living art, we need both a pronunciation as close as possible to that of his own time, based on the most exhaustive research of the most gifted linguists, combined with an insightful and intelligent delivery of the meaning of the text, from the most gifted and dedicated of actors. I also believe that a professional audio recording of one of the major plays is the preferred medium to begin the project. [I would, on a whim, start this work with _Richard III._ ]I do not, alas, expect this to happen in my lifetime.
I think you're absolutely correct in your objections. Some of the things have always bothered me.
Bloody delightful delivery!
00:00 Introduction
01:50 The chief basis of Crystal's reconstruction
03:08 Problems with reconstructing pronunciation by means of rhyme
05:04 John Hart
09:40 /ǝɪ/ (Price lexical set)
11:17 /ǝɪ/ (Happy lexical set)
14:59 Alexander Gil
18:45 /ǝɪ/ (Choice lexical set)
20:28 /ɤ/ (Strut and goose sets)
22:08 /ɛ/ (Face lexical set)
24:23 /ɐ/ (Nurse lexical set)
25:30 /ɑ/
26:20 /ǝʊ/ (Mouth lexical set)
26:45 Letter r
28:37 Letter h
30:26 Conclusion
31:22 Proposed alternatives
33:05 Roger Lass
35:46 Elizabethan phoneticians
37:30 Pronunciation of words like day
39:51 Pronunciation of words like mate
40:24 Disagreements with Lass (short vowels /ɪ/ and /ʊ/)
45:02 Pronunciation of the schwa (/ə/)
47:52 Final conclusion
This is extremely refreshing content in a world that can't bear a 10 second clip.
I can't find in Crystal's dictionary how "returne" and "mourne" rhyme in Dowland's song "Now o now I needes must part" .They have different pronunciations in his dictionary.
Yes, that is well observed; John Hart's spelling of turnd, with an implied vowel-pronunciation of /u/ or /ʊ/, would give rise to a much closer rhyme with mourn than would the pronunciation /tɐɹn/, which arises from Crystal's merging of the nurse lexical set under the sound /ɐ/. To this day, some people still pronounce mourn as /mʊən/ or /mʊɹn/.
Fantastic video! This must show how much my own view is subjective, but what you said about the letter "r" at 26:45 seems to imply an American sounding r to me at least. The thought of a dogs growl sounding like it is rolling an r seems rather silly to me(this is probably subjective). I wonder if Italians roll their r when imitating a dog growl. I would draw a distinction between hard r (American r, dog growl, throat snarl), soft r (British r, h sound), and rolled r (Italian r, tongue trill). But if the r is stated to be the same as in riputazione, then i guess thats that, unless there is variation. I wish Johnson would have been specific about which "other tongues" he was referring to.
Another thought is that once the correct age appropriate pronunciations are generally agreed on, performers are known to make near rhymes actually rhyme by changing the sounds of one or both words, and this may need to be taken in to account. So even if lines and loins don't actually sound the same, the joke may have still been there(was it?) and so there may need to be a distinction between "original theatrical pronunciation", and "original correct pronunciation". Anyway, just food for thought, thanks so much for the video!
Thank you for your kind thoughts. What you say about the bending of pronunciation is, I think, a valid speculation. It would, I think, be a valid defence of a pun between the words “hour” and “whore” which Crystal alleges of the line “From hour to hour, we rot and rot” in As You Like It. I believe that pun also to be something of a stretch, because “hour” descends from Middle English /u:r/, while “whore” is descended from Middle English /oːr/, and so the sounds were likely to have developed differently in Shakespeare's day. But both sounds were, at least, back-vowels with lip-rounding, and therefore would have remained relatively connected in phonology. With respect, on the other hand, to line and loin, if, following John Hart, you take line to be /lɛin/ and loin to be /luin/ (also consonant with separate lineages in Middle English), then the linguistic difference between them was probably as great for Shakespeare as it is for us.
The description of R as a dog’s letter is, as you say, open to interpretation, since people use the American R, or approximant, to imitate a dog also. The term “littera canina” originates in Latin, and it did, in that language at least, describe a trill which was thought to sound like a growling dog. When I was writing this essay, the strongest argument that I knew for the trilled or tapped R was that of onomatopoeias (as Shakespeare’s “Blow, winds and crack your cheeks” speech, which is so evidently written to sound harsh and rough); but if I had known of it I should like to have cited the research of A. Z. Foreman, who provides what is to me highly convincing linguistic evidence for the trill on the basis of primary sources describing speech (from a blog post called “Kökeritz Remodeled, The Problem and Promise of "Original Pronunciation"):
“A trilled [r] for Southern English is witnessed in the 17th century by several quite clear articulatory descriptions of it, including John Wallis (1653), John Wilkins (1668), William Holder (1669), Christopher Cooper (1685). Even Sir Isaac Newton (yes, that Sir Isaac Newton of gravity-discovering fame) in his phonetic notes (datable to the 1660s) describes the English /r/ as characterized by "the quavering or jarring of the toungs end against the fore parte of palate."
And Newton's description isn't even as good as it gets. Other 17th century phoneticians give far more detailed articulatory descriptions that afford no ambiguity. William Holder's Elements of Speech 1669) is a book primarily concerned with teaching deaf mutes to pronounce English, and in describing English /r/ gives a detailed and quite perceptive characterization of one defining feature of trills: directing airflow over an articulator so that it vibrates. Holder states that R is made
"...by a Pervious [=non-occlusive] Appulse [=obstruction] of the end of the Tongue, with its edge to the Goums, The Tongue being held in that posture, onely by the force of the … Muscles, and not resting any where upon the Teeth; except onely touching them loosely, so as to close the passage of Breath every where by the sides, and conduct it to the end of the Tongue. And this with a strong Impulse of Breath vocalized, so as to cause a trembling and vibration of the whole Tongue; which vibration being slow, does not tune the voice, but make it jarred; the Tongue not resting but […] agitated by strong impulse of Breath"
Virtually every available source for the 16th and 17th centuries with anything to say about English /r/ either implies or explicitly describes an apical trill (or at least non-approximant) for /r/ as normal. The few apparent exceptions are either hopelessly ambiguous (Robinson) or explicitly report trill-less speech as aberrant or a speech defect (Holder, Wilkens). Our best 18th century sources attest to continued trilled realizations among a minority of high-status London speakers. The alleged "difficulty" (Crystal 2016) of determining the nature of EModE /r/ is in part an artifact of scholarly unwillingness to believe what the actual sources say about the English known to them. It's also worth noting the complete absence of any mention of apical trills as a regionalism in this period. Many 16th and 17th century sources are eager to document and disparage various pronunciations as Scotticisms and Hibernisms, but Englishmen give no indication that Scottish, Irish, Welsh or Northern pronunciations of /r/ were at all peculiar to or distinctive before the 18th century. Even then the first reference by Defoe (1720) to an oddly pronounced Northern /r/ is to to uvular [ʀ]. From around the mid 1700s we have increasingly plentiful written testimony from Southern Englishmen as to the peculiar harshness of coda /r/ as pronounced by Irishmen, Welshmen, Scotsmen and Northern English speakers.”
@@ThomasWhichello
Thank you for taking the time for such a detailed response with so many excellent sources! I am enjoying the blog post by A. Z. Foreman, I like how he starts with a chronology of the great vowel shift with some examples. The evidence for the rolled R is overwhelming, I did especially appreciate Newtons phonetic notes as a source.
I still find it fascinating that descriptions such as "harsh" seem to apply to different sounds to different people. I imagine the reason I think a trill is perhaps "fancy" or "pretty" and an American /r/ is harsh is that while growing up it was the American /r/ that I was first introduced to and associated it with harsh noises, and the trill I perceived as new or foreign. Therefore the American /r/ that I naturally (and incorrectly) think of as a basic and harsh sound, was my go-to understanding of the description. I think this illustrates the value of quality sources, and the value of people like you taking the time and diligence to make sure we are not caught at a loss due to such biases. Thanks again, I hope you keep up the great work.
Hey, I really appreciate what you're doing with this channel, and that was a marvelous essay!
Awesome voice and channel I would love to hear more of you performing different chapters and plays!
Interesting!