76.232.200.172 wrote:
Wiz Ardon, the Peculiar Enchanter wrote:
Or thou couldst just pay me the money instead and I'll tell thee that ye and you were plurual forms of second person in old English. :P You don't even have to remove the "that;" all you have to do is make sure that multiple people want to murder you, which is't too hard if you have a personality as abrasive as mine! :D
Stirling Silverstine wrote:
We will address ye and second person of verbs in later lessons.Jonna Friesian wrote:
if one were to remove the "that" in that sentence, would it be appropriate to fill it in with "ye" and add "-est" to "could"?Wiz Ardon, the Peculiar Enchanter wrote:
The Lessons shall begin now:
-Raises hand- It's thou!! It's thou!! (Although ironically thee would fit better in the sentences I just used?)The Lessons shall begin now:
Lesson 1
[...]
Now, let's see if you can make it through a course of obstacles. Well, actually it's some sentences where you must fill out the missing words:
1. âWhy, so that _____ can murder me in my sleep?â
Actually, I'll continue this later guys. Sorry. For now have this incomplete version.
P.S. I still want that duckz pond.
Well, since we began this, adding -est to could be wrong. Adding -st to could (couldst not couldest) is the right way as shown in N_B's first sentence in the above post.
P.S. Those who hijack my lessons don't get duckz ponds! :P