Re: my Swedish exercise (was: official language post)

 --- BP Jonsson skrzypszy:

< snip >

Funny, now that I see that original and the translation together, everything
seems to simple and so logical now, that I really cannot imagine that it took
me such an effort to come to such a poor result.

> So far I haven't gonelooking for my only and inadequate
> Nederlands-Zweeds Wordenboek either...
Yes, but you probably know German, and Dutch is much closer to German than
Swedish is to either of them.

> >Nevertheless, it would have been helpful if I had known the
> >meaning of the words "som",
>
> "that, which" -- relative particle is the technical term
>
> >"fick" (not the same as in German I hope, naughty boy! ;)) )...
>
> No no, it means "got", past tense of _få_ "get, acquire",
> Dutch "krijgen".
Well, I would never have guessed those two. If I had known them in advance, I
had probably done a better job.

> Etymologically it is related to Dutch "vangen"
Interesting. But plausible, especially if you realize that the past tense of
"vangen" in Dutch is "ving".

> >Well, how does that sound?
>
> As I said about as good as my decodings of the Dutch posts lately.
Nah, I don't think so. I should have done better.

Jan

=====
"Originality is the art of concealing your source." - Franklin P. Jones

__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer