9802Re: My FS
- Nov 2, 2006Hehe. Ig begann tu tenk et war Ingmar wan ig lesd de schraivings over
"ig" end "ik". De fras "By the way, 'ig' is much more representative"
segd als en fakt (nit, "ig tenk...") iss magwes typisch ingmar! ;-)
...end de "roerd" in dain e-mail mak et total klar...:-D
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "stefichjo" <sts@...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
> > Don't go say I fooled you guys, or didn't you know that Chamavian
> > 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
> more weight.
> So, no, I didn't know it was you. How could I? You were even
> > Yes, I think it should be "sig" as well. *"Sik" with final -k
> > even exist in one of the source langages! German sich, Dutch
> > and Scandinavian sig/seg, so where would one take that -k from
> > 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
> > 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.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>