emanuela,
fascinating example!
once (only once) i was mistaken as being from torino in rome, when my italian was a little more voluble than these days. i also remember learning that fellini's film "amarcord" comes from a me riccordo. is that true?
in my experience of shakespeare, there are lots of words that are out of use today. when reading, they really impede understanding, but when watching the play in action they barely stick out at all - the acting and intonation of the actors cover them. after all, who understands every word of a conversation, or even a movie? it doesn't matter at all. in fact, we pick up a huge amount of a conversation by an automatic understanding of rhythm and intonation (and expectations grounded in previous experiences).
am i right in thinking that shakespeare, along with more recent poets like hardy, used words not even in common use in their day?
there's no one current language, as far as i can tell. native speakers (and really good students) of a language have a huge capacity to understand nuances from all kinds of sources, historically and geographically remote.
i don't feel shakespeare is a different language, because i feel so many of his phrases in my bones, even when they're new to me.
after all we only understand the english we use now because of the english that came before. 50 per cent is a pretty good hit rate for something old.
translation is just an interface. like news stories, the more you know about it, the less true it is.
i only read japanese books or poems in english cause i can't read japanese. when i hear and understand something in japanese that moves me, i feel like i've just discovered my neglected front yard is in fact a cherry orchard.
as for shakespeare in schools, surely the teachers who think it's a necessary duty will leave students thinking the same way, while teachers who love its sensualness and beauty (and can express that) will instill the same feelings in their students.
