Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

9792Re: My FS

Expand Messages
  • stefichjo
    Nov 2, 2006
      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
      >
      > 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?

      I would try and say something like this if you would have made
      proposals that are content of Middelsprake in order to give your ideas
      more weight.

      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't
      > 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" ;-)

      My first approachin FS was to have forms like "dig", "mig", "sig",
      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.

      Stephan
    • Show all 21 messages in this topic