I am unsure if this helps but I posted this answer to a similar question before, which also links to a bunch of interrelated answers given over the last few months.

Crucially, we have to be careful when it comes to the idea that Shakespeare ‘invented’ new words. Did he literally invent them or did he merely write them down for the first time? We do not know if he literally invented words such as obscure, accommodation, barefaced, leap-frog and lack-lustre, we know he certainly was the first to have them recorded. And indeed some of his new words were not new so much as dialect and slang.

While Johnson’s plays reveal a clear London based idiom with his language, Shakespeare used terms found in the Warwickshire region.

For example, ‘Baton’ was a Midlands term for cudgel while ‘batlet’ was still in use around the Stratford-upon-Avon region for centuries after he died to describe the bat with which you beat clothes in the wash. From his Midlands upbringing came terms such as ‘keck’ (Aka parsley) and ‘geck’ (Aka to fool).

However, while Shakespeare’s ability to influence English is much praised and much is made of his ability to coin new words, less is made of the ‘new words’ and terms he coined that FAILED to lodge in the mind and vocabulary of English speakers- words such as ‘adruption’, ‘vastidity’, ‘questrist’, ‘cadent’, ‘appertainments’ and ‘honorificabilitudinatibus’ (which means basically ‘to do with honour’) never really struck a cord with English speakers and are forgotten about.

I mention them as an illustration that Shakespeare was not afraid to experiment with the language he was using.

His real power however lay in putting existing words together. He took the word ‘tuned’ and coupled it with ‘ill’ and ‘ill-tuned’ it became. ‘Baby’ and ‘eyes’ became ‘baby-eyes’. ‘Faced’ was a word possibly minding its own business innocently until he came along and introduced it to ‘smooth’ and ‘smooth-faced’ became a thing.

As such looking at words like ‘lack-lustre’ and barefaced above, they do seem right up Shakespeare street in terms of ‘words he invented’. But again he wasn’t alone in expanding the vocabulary of the language at the time.

English was not very rules heavy. He realised (and he wasn’t alone in this) that almost any word in use could be coupled together with any other word. And in a veritable sea of poets and writers and wits from Oxford, he was the most daring, bold and exciting of these practitioners (and to the annoyance of several- NOT Oxford alumni).

In the end his success lay not just in what he was writing but WHEN he was writing. Dr Johnson said two hundred years later (and this places Shakespeare into context somewhat)

From the authors which rose in the time of Elizabeth... a speech might be found adequate to all purposes of use and elegance. If the language of theology were extracted from Hooker and the translation of the Bible; the terms of natural knowledge from Bacon; the phrases of policy, war and navigation from Raleigh; the dialect of poetry and fiction from Spenser and Sidney; and the diction of common life from Shakespeare, few ideas would be lost to mankind for want of English words in which they might be expressed

Now in the 21st century we may find it hard to be aware of the words of all bar one of the above, it is indicative that the language itself was, during the Tudor period, like so much of England, undergoing a profound and crucial transition from the medieval nation into the early modern one.

And this was a universal change. It wasn’t existing on the page but rather the page was reflecting what was happening on the streets.

As such I think the audience understood Shakespeare just fine.

Sources: Bragg, M ‘The Adventure of English’ (2003) Braunmuller & Hattaway (ed) ‘Cambridge Companion to English Renaissance Drama’(1990)