On Jul 26, 9:21*am, The Master wrote:
On Jul 24, 8:38*pm, raylopez99 wrote:

Not really true. *We could understand one word of what the English
1000 AD man says, and who says, other than you, that 80% of the
similarity was present?

* Have you been reading Chaucer again, Phil? * I canna understan' 'im
any
better than I can understan' Mr. Scott in Star Trek, or Darby O'Gill.

Chaucer is readily understandable by anybody with a modicum of
intelligence. Let me that translate in simple words: YOU do not
understand Chaucer.

Reading Chaucer is like playing over a chess game in long descriptive
notation, the kind without symbols. Such as "In the first move, the
white king pawn moves two squares from its original position to be
five squares over from the right and four squares up from the bottom"
instead of 1.e4.

RL