Generally if changing the spelling does not change how the word is
pronounced, then go for it. choak, loth, mungrel are all good examples
of words that can be modernized because changing choak -> choke does not
change how it's pronounced, or the meaning.
I would say the same for gull'd -> gulled, penn'd -> penned, but *not*
for 'gainst -> against or thou'rt -> thou art.
On 4/2/19 11:48 AM, BTK wrote:
> So I am wondering how far to go with the spelling modernization. For now
> all I've done is fix the common compounds like we usually would. But the
> text is rife with contractions: thou'rt, gull'd, do't, penn'd, ’gainst
> etc. The version of Faustus I worked from had fixed most of these
> especially all the ’ds and read pretty easily. This one is distinctly
> more archaic. And then there are words like Choak (choke), loth (loath),
> mungrel (mongrel) etc.
>
> I think it works as is, but fixing some of the more obvious old
> spellings might help it along. The problem is where to draw the line. I
> have two versions: The New Mermaids fixes most of ’ds but leaves many
> of the elisions. My Norton Critical Edition modernizes pretty much all
> of it.
>
> What's your call?
>
> On Monday, 25 March 2019 14:06:50 UTC-6, BTK wrote:
>
> While I wait to see how Faustus turns out I figure I will do another
> play: Ben Jonson's /The Alchemist /from 1610. As far as I can tell
> this one is 100% blank verse so it should be easier and more
> consistent.
>
> Gutenberg's version is based off Felix Schelling's /The Complete
> Plays of Ben Jonson /and seems to be pretty authoritative and is
> <
https://github.com/b-t-k/ben-jonson_the-alchemist>
>
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/1b5e6c45-5e7b-462a-bb60-cdafab834739%40googlegroups.com
> <
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/1b5e6c45-5e7b-462a-bb60-cdafab834739%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.