|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Apr 9, 2016 2:30:52 GMT
Keep the language family friendly, right mates? Huh? If you are reading some crude humor or profanity in between Shakespeare's lines here... you have a filthy mind, get out of the gutter. That speech was supposed to be an inspiring speech in relation to warfare, not a vulgar travesty. If you're referring to "manhoods" as personal body parts, that's your prerogative, but don't interpret somebody's words written four hundred fifty years ago that way the way you would treat words coming out of MTV or tumblr. That word "manhoods" in the play was about men's sense of masculinity, code of honor, knights in armor, that sort of thing. I hope you realize that. He is reffering to Simon. |
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Apr 9, 2016 2:42:20 GMT
Keep the language family friendly, right mates? Huh? If you are reading some crude humor or profanity in between Shakespeare's lines here... you have a filthy mind, get out of the gutter. That speech was supposed to be an inspiring speech in relation to warfare, not a vulgar travesty. If you're referring to "manhoods" as personal body parts, that's your prerogative, but don't interpret somebody's words written four hundred fifty years ago that way the way you would treat words coming out of MTV or tumblr. That word "manhoods" in the play was about men's sense of masculinity, code of honor, knights in armor, that sort of thing. I hope you realize that. "Fuq Stalin" is not good language to be used here and will start a flame war. Also Shakespeare was a pervert, using alot of sexual hidden meanings, but thats my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Apr 9, 2016 2:45:50 GMT
Huh? If you are reading some crude humor or profanity in between Shakespeare's lines here... you have a filthy mind, get out of the gutter. That speech was supposed to be an inspiring speech in relation to warfare, not a vulgar travesty. If you're referring to "manhoods" as personal body parts, that's your prerogative, but don't interpret somebody's words written four hundred fifty years ago that way the way you would treat words coming out of MTV or tumblr. That word "manhoods" in the play was about men's sense of masculinity, code of honor, knights in armor, that sort of thing. I hope you realize that. He is reffering to Simon. Oh... It had seems that he was replying to the quote from Shakespeare, so "Wait, what? What?". It had sounded like he was talking what was the post right before his own. I had too many bad experiences with kids misconstructing something from history because they can only think in terms of modern-day pop culture, not in perspective of how people had different views during their lives in the past generations. Historical perspectives can be quite a surprise if someone is willing to dig out the truth with an open mind. Bismarck, read the speech again in context of the play. I promise you, no hidden meanings in that specific speech. |
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Apr 9, 2016 2:54:48 GMT
He is reffering to Simon. Oh... It had seems that he was replying to the quote from Shakespeare, so "Wait, what? What?". It had sounded like he was talking what was the post right before his own. I had too many bad experiences with kids misconstructing something from history because they can only think in terms of modern-day pop culture, not in perspective of how people had different views during their lives in the past generations. Historical perspectives can be quite a surprise if someone is willing to dig out the truth with an open mind. Bismarck, read the speech again in context of the play. I promise you, no hidden meanings in that specific speech. I'm a big fan of William (T. Riker  ) but thats like saying Sweeney Todd wasnt based off of Dies Irae. Its there but very subtle. |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Apr 9, 2016 3:08:05 GMT
Elsewhere, you mentioned to me that you disliked being judged on something taken out of context but we both are living in the same era (with different lives and experiences ofc) but can you imagine how badly people take things from Shakespeare's plays completely out of context?
The way a scholar should read anything... Do the textual criticism, read the words as by the definition first. If it fits the context, then a hidden meaning isn't the specific meaning intended by the writer. So when I read "manhoods" it fits the quote what I explained in the thread perfectly.
Just saying... let words fit themselves into the context by the historical meaning that matches the times of when the writer wrote his words. I emphasize this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Apr 9, 2016 3:58:02 GMT
Elsewhere, you mentioned to me that you disliked being judged on something taken out of context but we both are living in the same era (with different lives and experiences ofc) but can you imagine how badly people take things from Shakespeare's plays completely out of context? The way a scholar should read anything... Do the textual criticism, read the words as by the definition first. If it fits the context, then a hidden meaning isn't the specific meaning intended by the writer. So when I read "manhoods" it fits the quote what I explained in the thread perfectly. Just saying... let words fit themselves into the context by the historical meaning that matches the times of when the writer wrote his words. I emphasize this. Oh please, Shakespear himself admitted to hiding even entire new storylines in his works |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Apr 9, 2016 4:07:36 GMT
Elsewhere, you mentioned to me that you disliked being judged on something taken out of context but we both are living in the same era (with different lives and experiences ofc) but can you imagine how badly people take things from Shakespeare's plays completely out of context? The way a scholar should read anything... Do the textual criticism, read the words as by the definition first. If it fits the context, then a hidden meaning isn't the specific meaning intended by the writer. So when I read "manhoods" it fits the quote what I explained in the thread perfectly. Just saying... let words fit themselves into the context by the historical meaning that matches the times of when the writer wrote his words. I emphasize this. Oh please, Shakespear himself admitted to hiding even entire new storylines in his works Okay justify whatever you think or like or just want to. I still consider it unscholarly to apply 21st century values on something that was written predating even the Victorian times, as in something even older than an era well nigh to 200 years old. |
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Apr 11, 2016 0:48:54 GMT
Oh please, Shakespear himself admitted to hiding even entire new storylines in his works Okay justify whatever you think or like or just want to. I still consider it unscholarly to apply 21st century values on something that was written predating even the Victorian times, as in something even older than an era well nigh to 200 years old. Shakespeare even made jokes about your mother |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Apr 11, 2016 1:12:06 GMT
17th century has very limited common ground with 21st century as in how words were used in conversations. Even those jokes were completely different than "Yo mama so fat" jokes, right? Very different implications and very different cultural understandings. There are still behaviors that remain universal to humans regardless of language or otherwise, noted. I'm not trying to sound like a Brit snob, ofc. No anglo-phile talking here  |
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Apr 11, 2016 1:13:48 GMT
17th century has very limited common ground with 21st century as in how words were used in conversations. Even those jokes were completely different than "Yo mama so fat" jokes, right? Very different implications and very different cultural understandings. There are still behaviors that remain universal to humans regardless of language or otherwise, noted. I'm not trying to sound like a Brit snob, ofc. No anglo-phile talking here What you said is true though. In the 17th Century you had to speak French to be considered a noble for example |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 5:22:26 GMT
The greatest speech was spoken by Mara Zālīte in 1991 and in Baltic states this time period is known as the revolution of songs as we(Baltic States) really were with songs VS guns
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Apr 16, 2016 5:21:20 GMT
The greatest speech was spoken by Mara Zālīte in 1991 and in Baltic states this time period is known as the revolution of songs as we(Baltic States) really were with songs VS guns Wasn't one of Baltic states the first one to declare independence? It wasn't Estonia I'm 100% sure about that |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2016 8:22:18 GMT
The greatest speech was spoken by Mara Zālīte in 1991 and in Baltic states this time period is known as the revolution of songs as we(Baltic States) really were with songs VS guns Wasn't one of Baltic states the first one to declare independence? It wasn't Estonia I'm 100% sure about that If you talk about first independence (before USSR occupied us) then it was 1) Estonia 2) Lithuania 3) Latvia, but it was only the official order as governments existed for 2 years before |
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Apr 16, 2016 15:23:38 GMT
Wasn't one of Baltic states the first one to declare independence? It wasn't Estonia I'm 100% sure about that If you talk about first independence (before USSR occupied us) then it was 1) Estonia 2) Lithuania 3) Latvia, but it was only the official order as governments existed for 2 years before I mean after the SU |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2016 15:46:43 GMT
If you talk about first independence (before USSR occupied us) then it was 1) Estonia 2) Lithuania 3) Latvia, but it was only the official order as governments existed for 2 years before I mean after the SU It was almost the same time for all 3 |
|
) but thats like saying Sweeney Todd wasnt based off of Dies Irae. Its there but very subtle.
