Doggo Hamlet by Frank Coffman

Foreword

By Melanie Atherton Allen

Hamlet is one of my favorite things.  It is a wonderful play, and wonderful things can be done with it.  Recently, on Facebook, I met one of these wonderful things.  It was posted in Occult Detective Quarterly’s Facebook group (which I highly recommend you join, for Strange and Fascinating Things are posted there) by Frank Coffman.  I won’t explain further (a Google image search for “Doggo Meme” will do that for you), but I will mention that there is now an entity known as Borkchito: Occult Doggo Detective on Facebook. 

Upon seeing this Wondrous Thing, I obtained Mr. Coffman’s permission to post it on Atherton’s Magic Vapour.

And now, without further ado…

Doggo Hamlet

By Frank Coffman

(Note: I have cut and pasted Frank’s post; everything beyond this point, including the BRILLIANT note at the end, is the work of Frank Coffman)

FAKE NEWS!: Flash—It has been discovered that Shakespeare also wrote in Doggo. A graduate student in English at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (also the present writer’s alma mater) had the audacity of sneaking into the rare book section, applying lemon-juice and risking a candle flame under the page of a folio edition of Shakespeare that held the famous “to be or not to be” soliloquoy. Amazingly, this folio is a palimpsest, and the Doggo version appeared! It follows:
To do an exist or to do a cease:
Does it do a nobling mind
To do an outrageousing suffer of fortune
Or do a hecking weapons grab against a troubling sea
To do a die, do a no-moring sleep—
And by a hecking sleeping to make a say
That we do a hecking end to a feeling bad
And the bunch of naturing shock
That Borkhamlet’s body is doing an inherit
That’s doing a hecking finish to do a wish for
To do a cease, to do a sleep…
To do a sleep, maybe to do a hecking dream!
Yep, that’s doing a wrong-way rub
‘Cause in the sleep of to cease, what doing of dream might do a come?
When we have done a shuffle off of Borkhamlet’s body
It does a must does a give us PAWS!
It does a respect that does a hecking calamity of doggy years.
For what dog would do a bearing of whips and scorns,
The doing of a wronging oppress?
A proud man’s do a hecking insult?
The pangs of a love doing a hecking despise?
The law’s doing of a $#!+-ng delay?
The hecking officing insult?
The doing of spurns, even though I’ve done a merit ?
When I might do a quietus-ing make?
Who would do a fardelling bear,
Do a grunt and a hecking sweat
But that it does a hecking dread of something after doing a cease—
Do a hecking undiscover of a place
No traveler does a return?
It does the will a puzzle
And does a hecking make us do a bear of those problems we do a have
Than do a hecking fly to others that we do a know not of.
And so the normalling resolve
Is done a sick with the pale doing a casting of doing a think
And does an awrying turn
And does a hecking, name-of-actioning lose

 

 NOTE: For any doggologists or doggoloquists who seem to see descrepancies in the Shakespeare DoggoHamlet text, it must be remembered that the Bard was composing in Early Modern Doggo. The language, like English, hath evolved over the centuries, and there are likely some formations and grammatical constructions that have changed. Concerning Contemporary Modern Doggo [CMD], there is clearly a need for scholars to unite and come up with a descriptive Doggoquistics for the language. Also, the language’s orthography and its several curious variances from English need to be codified. A fine start may be made with the seminal sentence as noted by Edwards and Tourigny (as significant for Doggolinquistics as Aristotpup’s classic syllogism is for logic: “All dogs are mortal. Dogrates is a dog. Dogrates is mortal.”). There is a wealth of information about Doggo in the sentence: “AM SMOL, BUT DO GHOSTS A HECKING FRIGHTEN.” Several rules of the language may be extrapolated from this one key sentence:

1st) As with English commands and imperatives, the understood subject of YOU is the norm (“Shut the door.” “Give me that.”), in Doggo, most frequently the “I” pronoun is not used, thus “AM SMOL” means “I am small”;

2nd) Dogs do not use lower case letters (except for the most erudite);

3rd) clearly, there are spelling variances from English, and often an attempt at phonetic spelling (“SMOL” for “small);

4th) the Direct Object of the Verb or Objects in General (Indirect and also of Prepositions) are NOT in the normal English position, but, rather, preceed the verbal construction, usually following the normal auxiliary “To Do” form (“DO GHOSTS A HECKING FRIGHTEN,” rather than “Frighten the heck out of ghosts” or, otherwise translated: “[I] frighten ghosts”);

5th) the main verb (in this case “To Frighten” is always expressed in the infinitive form with the TENSE of the verb carried by the ubiquitous auxiliary form of “To Do” THUS: DO A FRIGHTEN is present tense, DID A FRIGHTEN is simple past tense, WILL DO A FRIGHTEN is future tense, HAD DONE A FRIGHTEN is past perfect tense, etc.

6th) Yet another key sentence noted by Edwards and Tourigny is: “DARK FORCES WILL DO A CONCERN.” Here, of course the simple future tense is indicated by “will do,” but we also see the aversion from the objective first person singular pronoun “ME” which, just as in the case of “I” needs not be stated. Thus the translation: “Dark forces concern me,” or “I am concerned with dark forces.”

7th) the overuse of the intensifier “HECKING” in the penultimate position prior to the main verb is characteristic of modern Doggo. A study needs to be made of the many and various “-ing” paricipial forms used as modifiers to the main verb for the extension of sentence meaning.

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *