On 18/05/2014 13:55, Doctor John wrote:
> On 17/05/14 22:57, Stephen wrote:
>>> Shakespeare? Henry V?
>>
>> Easy.
>>
>
> Could have been Henry IV Part 2
>

It was part II IMSMW. But since you are a stalwart of the game. I gave 
you the benefit of the doubt.

>>
>> Lier you learned it at your mother's knee.
>>
>> We never got the miller's tale.
>>
>
> I wonder why. :-D
> Would it be that the fair youths of Glasgow were too innocent to
> understand the story?
>

That must be the reason. Our Twelfth Night had no mention of the buttery 
bar, either.

>> (Interesting-ish fact: I met this guy in Nigeria, from the Kingdom
>> (Fife), who could recite great chunks of Chaucer in a broad Scots.
>> Strangely enough it was more intelligible than out English teacher's.
>>
>
> My English teacher also used a Scottish lilt to read the verses. As you
> say, it made the words more intelligible.
>

I think a Yorkshire accent would work as well. In some parts they still 
"thee and thou".

>>>>> John (a cynical old !fool)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A factorial fool? ^_^
>>>>
>>>    That's a logical NOT, <sotto voce> idiot
>>>
>>
>> 'Snot. Ba'bag :-P
>>
>>
>
> If I'd meant factorial, I would have written 'fool!'. ya wally eejit ;-)
>

Bugger! Put this date in your diary. I was wrong about something. :-D


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

I solemnly promise to kick the next angle, I see.

Post a reply to this message