Talk:ik

Dutch 'declension'
Would you really consider zij, hij, wij, etc. to be declensions? At most, I would consider them related terms. -- 124.171.169.189 11:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The table lists a mixture of both, really. I figured that since we already put tables with forms into the Declension or Conjugation sections, it might as well be the same here too. —CodeCat 15:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Brus
Removed from the English section of the entry because it is Early Scots, not Modern English (unless it is a modern edition / can of worms):
 * c. 1375,, :
 * "Dame," sayd he, "hym her ye by, For ik am he, [...]"

RFV
English. Says "disappeared in 15th century", which suggests Middle English (b.g.c seems to confirm this). As for the "dialectal" part, I have yet to come across a modern English dialect which pronounces I as "ik". Note that ich already failed RFV. -- Liliana • 14:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ich shouldn't have failed, unless you are not counting alternative forms (e.g. Iche, ych, ich-, che, Ch- (as in Cham, Chill, Chell)). ik indeed went out 14thc, being replaced by I (the form used before a consonant), but ich survived much longer in dialects of the South until the 18thc-19thc. Leasnam (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ik was probably lumped in as dialectal bc it is still to be found in some Scots dictionaries (being found in The Bruce and Wallace manuscripts) as ik/ic, but these are w/i Middle English timeframe (?). Leasnam (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Leasnam it seems reasonable if the definition of ich is "archaic form of I" o have three citations for ich and not for variant forms. A citation for ych should count for ych. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But what if we can't find 3 citations for each one individually, but we can find them if we keep them together? 21:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe I can find 3 (and many more) for a pure "ich" post-dating 1470. I will show them here before moving back to the page. Leasnam (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) *1529, John Skelton, Elynour Rummyng:
 * Ich am not cast away.
 * 1) *1561, John Awdelay, The fraternitye of vacabondes:
 * My maysters, ich am an old man, and halle blinde, [...]
 * 1) *1568, Thomas Howell, Arbor of Amitie:
 * With cap and knee, ich will serve thee, what should ich more declare.

Lo!, 3 Modern English citations. Leasnam (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Very nice... but speaking of this... if ik was attested in Middle English then Old English ic would have had this pronounciation too? Should it be added? 21:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Indeed, if a Middle English form shows the presence of a hard 'k', I think it is invariably safe to assume it must have been present as hard k in Old English. Palatisation runs this way: c (=k) > ch, but not in the reverse direction. Leasnam (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added the pronunciation now but there's an unrelated problem with the rfscript template, it adds it to 'entries needing Cyrs script'... 22:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've restored, and added another citation. Restored as well, but will have to cite that at another time. Ich am late for a gathering;) Leasnam (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Going back to Old English, we can find three attested forms of the pronoun, ic, icc, and ih. I believe these evolved into ich (west/southern dialects), ik (northumberland/danelaw), and i (eastern dialects) respectively. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone outside of Scotland now who will say ik instead of I. I guess it could be listed as a dialectal possibility for the moment. As for ich, I found an old dictionary at a local community college (Websters of 1923 I believe) that lists it as archaic/dialectal British. The last confirmed form I read of was something akin to 'hyche' or 'yche', in 1869 (I need to look for more info about this, not 100% on who was surveyed, what age group, and so forth). But assuming a few children learned this form, it would have died out around the time of this dictionary, as these last children using this form of 'ich' would have died as old men and women thenabouts. --Chakrar16 (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This still needs one more citation... - -sche (discuss) 01:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The Barbour citation is both from the 1300s and in Scots, so it fails to support the English-ness of this term. I have tentatively converted ik to an -pointer to ich, where I have placed the info about ik. - -sche (discuss) 04:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

RFV discussion: June–July 2016
The version history seems to imply that it once was a Dutch or German Low German entry which incorrectly developed into an Plautdietsch entry. Dit un jant opp Plautdietsch has the form ik (e.g. in "Ut de Nacht bün ik kamen") and the book title implies that it is Plautdietsch. However, I only saw snippets of the book and the book could very well just have a Low German text or translation in it. That is, the form might exist, but I can't assure that. -Ikiaika (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC) RFV failed. -Ikiaika (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * E.g. in the version from 25th December 2010 there is no Low German entry but a Low Saxon entry. There it was "Ik kwam, ik zag, ik overwon (nl), Ik keem, ik keek, ik wun (pd)". pd could have meant Low German (Plautdeutsch or Plattdütsch/Plattdüütsch), including both Dutch and German Low German.
 * In  the nl example got replaced by nds.
 * somewhere pd got changed into pdt which stands for Plautdietsch.
 * In  the Plautdietsch entry ik got extracted from the Low German entry.
 * nl:ik has the same example as Nedersaksisch.
 * No clear citation has been given and it's uncited. So it is:

I know
Used as an abbreviation of I know --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)