9792Re: My FS
- Nov 2, 2006--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
>I would try and say something like this if you would have made
> Don't go say I fooled you guys, or didn't you know that Chamavian and
> your old buddy Ingmar were one and the same?
proposals that are content of Middelsprake in order to give your ideas
So, no, I didn't know it was you. How could I? You were even behaving! ;-)
> Yes, I think it should be "sig" as well. *"Sik" with final -k doesn'tMy first approachin FS was to have forms like "dig", "mig", "sig",
> even exist in one of the source langages! German sich, Dutch zich,
> and Scandinavian sig/seg, so where would one take that -k from then?
> Think of English daily, German täglich
> English naturely, German natürlich
> English ugly, German hässlich
> etc etc
> and you'll realize that E -ly and not -like is the cognate here.
> At least I never heard of "give us our daylike bread", "that's true,
> naturelike" or "what an uglike woman" ;-)
like "dich", "mich" and "sich" in German. But I shortened them to
"di", "mi" and "si". So, there's no "k" nor "g". End of the story,
from my point of view.
"lik" and "-lik" are both "pan-germanic" to me.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>