On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:25:27 +0200, "Gilles Tran"
<gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote:


>a9fg54l5btk1s87hemar5bm6ht4d3si961@4ax.com...
>
>> Shakespeare is inappropriate for children, they cannot understand the
>> language. Who amongst us understands the joke in Troilus and Cressida
>> when someone asks where Ajax is and the answer is "Looking for
>> himself" You need to know that Ajax sounds like "a jacksie" or an old
>> fashioned name for a toilet. That is he was crapping himself.
>
>Actually I think that's what makes it particularly suitable for children (or 
>at least young teenagers). The fact that the dirty jokes and innuendos have 
>to be explained to modern audiences - and some, like the "two backed beast", 
>don't really have to - does not make them less palatable. There's a healthy 
>dose of slapstick and crude humor in Shakespeare that makes it very 
>attractive to kids, provide you give them the keys of course.
>
That's the argument that I used to use until I realised that it was my
own personal likes I was trying to promote. Anyway it is not taught
like that in Britain, at least not when I was at school. We were given
school editions with the obvious smutty bits cut out. (Put your hand
to the buttery bar etc.) We concentrate on the "beauty" of the
language, the relevance to modern day and "you will learn it 'cause I
say so. Not on the entertainment and fun. Countrie matters, rustics
and rude mechanicals are treated as something to apologise for. (Even
The Great Shakespeare had to pander to the base tastes of the paying
public.) 
OK I'll get down off my high horse, whether it costs me my kingdom or
not :)
Yes! Stephen get down off the stove you're too old to be riding the
range :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> OK I'll get down off my high horse, whether it costs me my kingdom or
> not :)

Jesus... I've never seen anybody actually give a **** about mere 
Shakespeare before! o_O

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:04 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>and to which modern  
>readers would be going "Huh?"

Do you think so? 

It is subtle by his lights, try from Midsummer Nights Dream.

THISBY. O wall, full often hast thou beard my moans,
    For parting my fair Pyramus and me!
    My cherry lips have often kiss'd thy stones,
    Thy stones with lime and hair knit up in thee.


THISBY. I kiss the wall's hole, not your lips at all.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:27:43 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>
>> OK I'll get down off my high horse, whether it costs me my kingdom or
>> not :)
>
>Jesus... I've never seen anybody actually give a **** about mere 
>Shakespeare before! o_O

Well you've never lived.

'Tis but a passion :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> Most neutral term seems to be "didn't know" or "don't know" - "John didn't  
> know what happened last night" oops "John can't remember what happened  
> last night" ;-)

  A problem happens when you need a noun instead of a verb. For example in
something like "John is ashamed of showing is ignorance about what happened
last night".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:17:33 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Most neutral term seems to be "didn't know" or "don't know" - "John  
>> didn't
>> know what happened last night" oops "John can't remember what happened
>> last night" ;-)
>
>   A problem happens when you need a noun instead of a verb. For example  
> in
> something like "John is ashamed of showing is ignorance about what  
> happened last night".

"John is ashamed of admitting that he doesn't know what happened last  
night"

Amazing how it is possible to reword almost anything :-)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:42:25 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:04 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> and to which modern
>> readers would be going "Huh?"
>
> Do you think so?

In this particular instance something like 'My Lord doth doff his cap' I  
think it was just an attempt to show that unless you lived at that time  
and in that culture you can't truely appreciate the plays to their fullest.

> It is subtle by his lights, try from Midsummer Nights Dream.
>
> THISBY. O wall, full often hast thou beard my moans,
>     For parting my fair Pyramus and me!
>     My cherry lips have often kiss'd thy stones,
>     Thy stones with lime and hair knit up in thee.
> …
>
> THISBY. I kiss the wall's hole, not your lips at all.

and of course almost anything that Mercutio utters in R&J :-)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:19:22 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>>> Or any game, really, that's rigged so the house wins most of the
>>>> time.
>>> Same thing applies, tho. I win most of the time.  I lose bigger, but I
>>> win most of the time.
>> 
>> Depends on the game.  I can manage to win pretty consistently at
>> blackjack regardless of whether I win individual hands or not - with
>> enough money, that's easy to do using a simple geometric progression
>> and some restraint to "stick to the plan".  But if I put the idea into
>> practice in Las Vegas, I'd probably end up banned from the casinos if I
>> won too much.  The house doesn't like to lose, and they don't like when
>> people who understand how to turn the odds in their favour show up and
>> provide a real-world demonstration that it is in fact possible.
>> 
>> Even still, if you're careful, you can manage to do this and not get
>> caught at it - changing tables or casinos frequently makes it very
>> difficult for them to track a pattern.  Not following the geometric
>> progression exactly also helps make it less obvious.
>> 
>> Some games are rigged closely enough to 50/50 odds that most people
>> don't think about the fact that they're not.  Roulette is one like
>> that; IIRC, your odds of winning are not 50% but 47%.
> 
> I love the way people say "rigged". I mean, you walk up to a towering
> casino that's using 200 kW to light up half the Vegas night sky, and you
> wonder how they pay for this? Well *obviously* the dice are stacked in
> their favour - if it weren't, they'd go out of business pretty damned
> fast. ;-) It's their *job* to take your money way... They just do a good
> job of making it look like "luck".

Yep, and they're very, very protective of making sure they *keep* winning 
and the patrons *keep* losing.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:15:13 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Meh. Who gets to decide what is or is not "obscure" anyway?

The collective.  If most people know something, it's not obscure, it's 
common knowledge.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:29:15 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 17 Jun 2008 22:31:59 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:12:21 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:08:07 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>"Lead on, McDuff"
>>> 
>>> "Lay on MacDuff..."  ;)
>>
>>I'm still trying to figure out what Richard's got to do with it.....
>>
>>
> That's a whoosh! Way over my head ???

Richard MacDuff (though I'd actually have to check to see it if it really 
was "MacDuff" rather than "McDuff", but I'm fairly certain the 'A' is 
there), one of the principal characters in "Dirk Gently's Holistic 
Detective Agency".

At least I didn't say "Billy Boyd". :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message