posted
I am toying with a story idea which involves a person who lived and died in Medieval England who will be magically resurrected into modern times by an American (thus a speaker of Modern English language). To be historically accurate, my medieval-times protagonist would more than likely speak Middle English.
My question is, would they even understand each other? Or would they have to fall back on a lingua franca such as Latin or French?
I don't know if I am over-complicating things and should make my character from the 16th century instead post Shakespeare
I would like opinions. Right now I am thinking it might be too far fetched to have my "modern American" character speak to the "medieval Briton" in French or Latin - at least somehow make it clear in the prose that when those two talk it's in a lingua franca even though the prose will be written in English.
I really don't know how to handle this, and what the best approach would be, so suggestions are more than welcome.
posted
I had Medieval English literature in my first year of study.
I think you can make the archaic speech work for you in more way than one... But... That would require massive amounts of research.
Also you definitely must be sure of the word's etymology. You don't want to use a word that is too modern for the characters background.
When I was reading people like Chaucer I often had a general idea about what he was writing but I had to look up the allusions and some more specific words.
I have some papers on the subject of medieval English language (hand outs, guides and such). I could scan or retype them if that means anything to you.
[This message has been edited by Foste (edited March 01, 2011).]
posted
The key is to not be too precise. You want to be archaic but not over specific. Try and establish a possible time he is from and work from that entire time period.
Posts: 36 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Foste - that would be really helpful if it's not too much trouble!
I was thinking I should maybe contribute a sketch of a scene in order to illustrate my dilemma.
#1 -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* "What's your favorite color?" Cassie asked William.
He stared at her then muttered some words, mostly incomprehensible, others familiar. Cassie sighed and wished she had paid more attention during English class when they covered Chaucer's Canterbury Tales.
Cassie looked to Sarah for help.
Sarah shrugged. "It's all Greek to me." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
OR
#2 -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* "What's your favorite color?" Cassie asked William in Latin.
"Blue," William replied in the lingua franca.
Sarah watched the exchange wishing she had picked Latin as her college language requirement instead of Greek. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
OR
Is this one of those times when the writer falls back on willing suspension of disbelief from readers of fantasy? And the exchange should go something like this:
#3 -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* "What's your favorite color?" Cassie asked William.
"Blue, milady," William replied.
Sarah sighed. She was a sucker for English accents, not to mention men dressed in Medieval tunics. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Hmmm, I have read books that have done each of the three examples. With the first one you would have to them learn enough of the other's form of English so they would be able to eventually communicate. That could make some interesting scenes...I don't mean humorous even there could be some of that too.
I was originally going to say number three would be better because it gets the information across easier...you could always use magic to help with the communication. Some people may think that is cheating but you have already introduced magic and it would seem that unless this resurrection was done in a hurry, there would have been some thought given to being to understand each other. Of course it could be that she just didn't think it would be that hard.
Anyway, as I was saying I originally thought of number three but as I wrote my first paragraph, back up there, I thought the idea of them learning the other person's English would be better. Don't take too long to get the basics out of the way but the lessons could go on throughout the book.
It all depends if they are on schedule and how fast the deadline is approaching:if they got only days to get their act together or if they have months. I am assuming that there was a need that she resurrected the guy to meet but if it was by accident or for fun or she liked the way the guy looked in a tunic, that could change the way you do things and how long they have to learn to communicate. If there is a romance than working with each other can facilitate the romance.
Then again all that could change the story too much and you may want number three after all. And also I think it depends on the audience...it sounds like a YA novel but I could be wrong. But a well explained "magic" answer to the problem could work, for it has worked in other novels.
posted
For reader comprehension I much prefer #3. However, I personally like #1 but would want to change it from Chaucer to Shakespeare. The irony with what she says next is just too perfect. (Its Greek to me is originally from Shakespeare, I cant remember which but it is certainly from him.)
Posts: 36 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like #1 for believability. If they were to converse in Latin they would both have to be very highly educated, especially the resurected dude. He'd probably have to be a member of the clergy or nobility.
As for French, I think your modern American is more likely to be able to understand Middle English than medieval French, and again, not just any medeival Britton would be able to speak French.
A realistic language barrier would be a challenge to write around, but I think it could be worth it.
Also, is there any possibilty of having a translator? A translator could be technological or human (like a the doctoral candidate down the hall who's doing his or her dissertation on Chaucer, or maybe even the MC's old professor). Anyway, lots of possibilities.
posted
As a reader, I'd like to see something like #1 the first time they speak together, then ease into #3 for the rest -- with an occasional misunderstanding or "what does that word mean, milady?" kind of thing to keep it "real."
A whole book like #1 would be unnecessarily slow -- unless the first part of the book centers around Cassie mastering Middle English. You could do that, too (but I wouldn't belabor the process), which would allow for some "secret code" communication between them, some #2-type reactions from others now and then.
posted
I don't have the actual dates, but I believe it's said that everything from Shakespeare on is comprehensible to the modern English speaker---before that, the language was different. (One could substitute the King James Bible for Shakespeare---they're contemporaries.)
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you wanted to think with even more complexity you might even hint at the changing of letters (ever ask yourself how we ended up with 'silent letters' or why hallelujah is not spelled halleluyah?).
Posts: 336 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It's Greek to me" is from JULIUS CAESAR. Casca is telling Cassius that Cicero spoke at a recent festival when Caesar was offered a crown, and when Cassius asked Casca what Cicero said, Casca couldn't tell him because Cicero spoke in Greek, and Casca didn't know Greek.
The language of the King James Bible helped contribute to a major change in English that was also contributed to by the availability of written English. Once people started writing English down for huge numbers of readers (relatively), the language more or less stablized and language evolution slowed down considerably.
posted
Michael Crichton's Timeline is a great example of the problem you're talking about. In it their lingua franca is, in fact, French, the language of the aristocracy at the time. They still have massive communication issues because not all members of the group speak French, and not all the people they encounter do either, which in itself provides an obstacle to overcome.
Not one of his best works story-wise, but still an interesting read.
quote:Casca is telling Cassius that Cicero spoke at a recent festival when Caesar
That crazy Shakespeare. Doesn't he know he's not supposed to have four characters whose names begin with the same letter? Clearly he hasn't read all the books on writing I have or he'd know better.
In regard to the language issue, you have even more matters of communication to deal with. There are gaps in the common-ground languages you've proposed for concepts that were non-existent in an earlier time, as well as possible confusion regarding seemingly common words with meanings that have changed over time.
As a reader I'd prefer an approach that addresses the "oh yeah?" question and then gets out of the way so that I can enjoy the story you want to tell.
Any one of the approaches you've outlined seem like they could do that. A scene noting the problem and a sentence describing your solution (consistent with the rules of the story's world) would convince me you know what you're doing and I don't have to keep wondering about how they're able to communicate.
[This message has been edited by posulliv (edited March 03, 2011).]
posted
Thank you everyone for all your responses They've all been very helpful.
Right now I am thinking I might do the language-barrier as a continuum - start off with a bit of difficulty with communication, then slowly wave the magic wand and have my resurrected guy eventually understand modern English while still having him speak in an archaic fashion in order to distinguish his speech from modern day speakers. That way he will be established as an as out-of-time and out-of-place type character.
My goal is some historical accuracy within reason since I am no linguist, no English Lit grad, and certainly no Tolkien in order to tackle the nuances of the development of the English language. Besides, I doubt the average reader picking up a fantasy book would care to read full tracts of dialogue rambling in Old/Middle English.
posted
Yeah that is one reason so many of my friends hate Shakespeare. They just do not know how to read it. Tolkien is just amazing >.> not sure how he did it but he did. And it was and is awesome.
Posts: 36 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:That crazy Shakespeare. Doesn't he know he's not supposed to have four characters whose names begin with the same letter?
Actually, two of the characters' names start with the K sound (Casca and Cassius), and the other two start with the S sound, so it isn't quite that bad (since Shakespeare wrote to be listened to, not read). And Cicero isn't really a character in that he is talked about and is off stage, and Caesar gets killed fairly early. Cassius is a major character, and Casca is only supporting.
posted
Rules are not absolute. I take them as guidelines. Arg matey. If you constantly stick to the rules you have so much less room to experiment. Some of the best books break rules. Bradbury's Martian Chronicles doesn't really have a protagonist, unless you count a planet.
posted
Actually, C is always pronounced K in proper Latin. How Shakespeare pronounced it, I have no idea.
And personally, I think the notion that readers are so dumb they can't tell Rick from Rob or even from Rich is overrated. If they can't, maybe the author hasn't defined the characters well enough, or has let them meld into an amorphous mass.
posted
To my knowledge (5 years of Silver and Golden age Latin study in HS and college), classical Latin pretty much exclusively treated C as a 'hard' C (K). This is particularly clear if you read epic poetry, such as the Aeneid. There is a famous scene near the beginning of the story where Aeneas is in a cave and Juno is bringing the walls down around him - virtually every word in the passage begins with a 'C', and most contain several 'C's as well. The effect is that reading (or reciting) the story alound creates an onomatopoeic effect that evokes the crashing of the stones. Such effects would not have been possible if half (or more) of the C's were pronounced as 'S'.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I was just making a self deprecating joke. I thought it was rather absurd that _I_ would give Shakespeare writing advice. I still think that's funny, but I'm going to stop with the levity from now on out. Sorry if I offended anyone or rat-holed this thread.
According to Latin Pronunciation Demystified by Michael A. Covington (Google it) there are a number of pronunciations to choose from. It seems from this and other sources on the Interweb that the "S" sound would have been in use in Shakespeare's time.
[This message has been edited by posulliv (edited March 04, 2011).]
posted
No prob, I thought it was funny too, and look at all the good discussion that came from it. I hadn't heard the Aeneid clashing stones thing (having not read it), and am now jealous of Hariolor for having all that Latin. I just had one year in HS, but loved it.