From: Óskar Guðlaugsson
Message: 564
Date: 2001-01-31
> > >No no, not at all :) The dualis is just "vit". Then there is aas
> > >preposition "við". However, later ON has some lenition going on,
> > >so "vit" > "við"; the latter is the MI and MFarose form, as well
> > >the probable ancestor of Scandinavian "vi".I'm about to prove myself wrong...
> myndum vit --> myndu mvit --> myndu mit.Your theory is very insightful, and in most probability true.
>
> So the "m" ending of the 1st person plural got glued
> onto the "vit", and hence "vit" became changed into "mit".
> And so we actually have 4 forms:
>
> vit, við, mit, mið
> > Vit vilja tevatn og breyð!You misunderstood, Ketill... That's MFaroese! :þ
>[snip ponderings of this phrase]