Yes, but it was a rare word back then and now is not used in common speech at all except in reference to its use in Romeo and Juliet. Because the word is not in general use, it hasn't had the chance to change its meaning.
The Queen was no more elected then than she is now, and the Elizabethans knew it.
Elizabethan audiences enjoyed the plays they watched for pretty much the same reasons as people do today, which is why Elizabethan plays keep getting produced. They were probably quicker to understand what they heard than we are, and were better listeners (modern people expect a story to be shown to them, not told to them). Elizabethans particularly enjoyed wordplay that used puns and alliteration: that is why Shakespeare's Love's Labour's Lost was much more popular then than now. A lot of the wordplay in Much Ado is still accessible to modern audiences.
Shakespeare's plays were performed in the Elizabethan theatres. Most of the people that were able to attend were royalty, and those that had more money than the others.
Shakespeare wrote in Elizabethan English, but he had an affinity for the older forms of the second person singular. Although by his time most people used the second person plural forms (you, your, yours) in the singular sense as we do today, Shakespeare liked the old distinctively singular forms (thou, thy, thine). These pronouns took verb endings in -st or -t: thou dost (for you do), thou hast (for you have), thou wilt (for you will). Thou shalt thus means "you shall" and will be instantly recognizable to many people from its use in the King James Bible version of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not kill", for example. The KJ version of the Bible was also written in Elizabethan English, and an even more old-fashioned form than Shakespeare used.
Yes, the Elizabethans had much longer attention spans and powers of concentration than people do nowadays. Compared to the Elizabethans, all 21st century people are ADHD.
Nowadays we have more knowledge than in the Elizabethan time. Thus, we have more information to know more.
I think you mean no less than which means the same as greater than which is >
Very little other than a love of theatre.
The Queen was no more elected then than she is now, and the Elizabethans knew it.
No. They are exactly the same.
Elizabethan audiences enjoyed the plays they watched for pretty much the same reasons as people do today, which is why Elizabethan plays keep getting produced. They were probably quicker to understand what they heard than we are, and were better listeners (modern people expect a story to be shown to them, not told to them). Elizabethans particularly enjoyed wordplay that used puns and alliteration: that is why Shakespeare's Love's Labour's Lost was much more popular then than now. A lot of the wordplay in Much Ado is still accessible to modern audiences.
Elizabethan language, used during the time of Queen Elizabeth I's reign in the late 16th century, differ from Modern English in terms of vocabulary, grammar, and spelling. Elizabethan language may feature archaic words and expressions, different verb conjugations, and alternate spellings. This can make Elizabethan English challenging for modern readers to understand without translation or context.
no, they mean the same thing
Not much. The story is not an English story, and is older than the Elizabethan era. Thirteen-year old girls were not forcibly married in Elizabethan England, nor were they kept cloistered in their parents' house, nor were they Catholics, as everybody in this play is. In other words, the play is useless as a social document about Elizabethan England, but then it is not a social document but a script for an entertainment. A better play to consider life in Elizabethan England is The Merry Wives of Windsor.
it means the same than in English.
Nothing, other than tat they have the same area!
No. But there can be more than one data point which has the same value as the mean for the set of numbers. Or there can be none that take the mean value.