|
|
| Line 9: |
Line 9: |
| | | | |
| | ===== Comments ===== | | ===== Comments ===== |
| − | | + | Go up one level to find the comments that were previously here. |
| − | <i> Spake is not a word</i> [[Telgar]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | Tell that to Nietzsche, who wrote <i>Thus Spake Zarathustra</i>.<br>
| |
| − | _[[Ikselam]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ah, he was a nihilist and aspiring ubermensch. As if he'd care what we think ;) - DariusSolluman
| |
| − | | |
| − | It is according to dictionary.com. Albiet an archaic word from middle english, but still a word :) Past tense of Speak. DariusSolluman
| |
| − | | |
| − | From www.merriam-webster.com:<br>
| |
| − | <b>Main Entry: spake <br>
| |
| − | Pronunciation: 'spAk<br>
| |
| − | archaic past of SPEAK</b><br>
| |
| − | - [[Quendalon]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | Middle English counteth not. - [[Telgar]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | Quoth he. Nay, verily, it doth. -- BrokenShade
| |
| − | | |
| − | Silliest debate evah! -- CrownedSun
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | I might ad that Nietzsche did in fact NOT write "Thus Spake Zarathustra" but rather "Also Sprach Zarathustra" and thus, he couldn't care less about "spake" -[[medivh]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | Please don't confuse Early Modern English with Middle English. --MetalFatigue
| |
| − | | |
| − | Let us not forget the best part of Enlish: Say a word with enough conviction, and it's more or less valid. Like notes in Jazz. -- [[DODurden]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | Nietzsche's book was titled "Also Sprach Zarathustra", which should be translated to "Thus Spoke Zarathustra". Some wanky Englishmen decided to do a translation with all sorts of silly archaicisms, hence the silly title. -[[MeiRen]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | <i>Spake</i> is not even Early Modern English (cf Canturbury Tales) as such, but is found as late as the 1800's in a number of official documents. Its greatest usage in terms of modern exposure, however, would have to be in the Elizabethan and Jamesian dialects of London used in the King James version of the Bible and in the works of Shakespeare. And before you argue, YES, those ARE English. You might not speak a dialect that uses that particular word, but that doesn't mean that it's not part of English. Thus Spake a Bloody Linguist. -[[Suzume]] (Who gets really tired of this kind of shit.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :Uh...I'm pretty sure the Canterbury Tales are Middle English, not Early Modern English. You don't usually need a translation to understand Early Modern English. --[[MF]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::Nope. One of the earliest extant texts of Early Modern. And one often needs a translation with Contemporary Englishes. There's absolutely no reason that one wouldn't need translation for a dialect from several hundred years ago. Look at how many kids in the schools need help to figure out what the hell the bard was saying. For that matter, how many people are fluent enough in, as referenced below, "Jimmy"'s English as used in that version of the Bible. Just 'cause you don't understand, doesn't make it another language, as bizzare as that sounds. -[[Suzume]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | :::So if the Canterbury Tales, which everybody in my educational career always referred to when they wanted to cite an example of a Middle English text, isn't Middle English, what is? --[[MF]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::::Bah! [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English Enough]! All of you! - [[EJGRgunner]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | I wouldn't be surprised if "spake" was invented along with the language structure used in Jimmy's 1611 translation of the Bible. I'd have to check Shakespeare again to see if he used it before I'd go guessing at the word's origins. - [[David.]]
| |
