münschen doues it mean something?
Armadillo
A long time ago my german teacher told us not to pronounce München with 's'
because münschen means something completely different. She did not tell us
what and to this day I have not found it out.
So what does münschen mean?
Jukka
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Saupreussen??
--
Daniel "Da" von Brighoff /\ Dilettanten
(de...@midway.uchicago.edu) /__\ erhebt Euch
/____\ gegen die Kunst!
Klaus Kolba
Actually 'münschen' doesn't mean anything. But depending on how you
pronounce it could be understood as something like:
wünschen (to wish) or
Mündchen (little mouth)
regards
Armadillo
> > So what does münschen mean?
>
> Actually 'münschen' doesn't mean anything. But depending on how you
> pronounce it could be understood as something like:
>
> wünschen (to wish) or
> Mündchen (little mouth)
These are not very likely choices. Frau Miettinen, our teacher, always
boasted that her friends in Germany time to time checked things about the
grammar from her. I believe that she new German language better than many
native Germans. The word which is pronounced 'münschen' must mean
something - most likely a obscene slang word.
Jukka
Karsten Düsterloh
Armadillo wrote:
> > wünschen (to wish) or
> > Mündchen (little mouth)
> These are not very likely choices. Frau Miettinen, our teacher, always
> boasted that her friends in Germany time to time checked things about the
> grammar from her. I believe that she new German language better than many
> native Germans. The word which is pronounced 'münschen' must mean
> something - most likely a obscene slang word.
I, too, do not know a word 'münschen'. But I have three more
alternatives to offer:
München (Munich, the capital of Bavaria)
Münzen (coins), münzen (to coin)
Münzchen (a little coin)
May I suggest that you ask her about the spelling?
Karsten
--
Das Weiße im Auge / des Feindes zu sehen /
heißt nichts als geduldig / vorm Spiegel zu stehen
Heinz Rudolf Kunze
Fsayannes SF&F-Bibliothek: http://fsayanne.tprac.de/
Armadillo
May I suggest that you ask her about the spelling?
That is an alternative but I do not know where to find her. It is much
easier to post to newsgroup than track her down. It has been over 20 years
now. Also I'm a bit reluctant to contact my old teachers since I was
anything but teacher's pet - more like a teacher's pest. :-)
Jukka
Michael A. Gaul
"Armadillo" <ju...@armadillo-removethis-graphics.fi> wrote in message
news:99phv0$afe$1...@news.kolumbus.fi...
Klaus Kolba
>
> > > So what does münschen mean?
> >
> > Actually 'münschen' doesn't mean anything. But depending on how you
> > pronounce it could be understood as something like:
> >
> > wünschen (to wish) or
> > Mündchen (little mouth)
>
> These are not very likely choices. Frau Miettinen, our teacher, always
> boasted that her friends in Germany time to time checked things about the
> grammar from her. I believe that she new German language better than many
> native Germans. The word which is pronounced 'münschen' must mean
> something - most likely a obscene slang word.
Again, there is no word "münschen" wether pronounced or written. But
your right, you don't have to believe it, because native german speakers
are stupid enough not to know their own language. But dream on 'it MUST
mean something!
Armadillo
> Again, there is no word "münschen" wether pronounced or written. But
> your right, you don't have to believe it, because native german speakers
> are stupid enough not to know their own language. But dream on 'it MUST
> mean something!
A bit sensitive aren't you. Very often people who study a language know it
better than native speakers. I'm sure that there are foreigners who know
Finnish, my native language, better than I. Especially if it is about some
dialect or slang.
Jukka
Robert Lange
> Very often people who study a language know it better than native
> speakers.
Probably it is rather easy to acquire theoretical knowledge about a
foreign language. It's a lot harder, maybe even impossible to acquire a
feeling for it (Sprachempfinden) that matches the one of an average
native speaker.
As for "münschen" -- I don't know this word either. So even if you'll
find it in some obscure German dictionary I wouldn't say it does really
*exist*. What good is a word that nobody knows anyway?
If you're still not convinced you might ask the experts in
news:de.etc.sprache.deutsch
> Jukka
.. Robert
Armadillo
sounds like münschen and you get pissed off. It is not that I do not blieve
you but on the other hand nobody knows every damn outdated slang word of
their mother tongue.
However, I got a proof of thoroughness in German national character. ;-)
Jukka
O.G. Schwenk
>What is a matter with you guys? I simpy ask if anyone knows a word that
>sounds like münschen and you get pissed off. It is not that I do not blieve
>you but on the other hand nobody knows every damn outdated slang word of
>their mother tongue.
So why do you insist that this word exists if nobody knows it?
If you check the list of towns and villages: No muenschen.
If you check the search-engines in the web: A lot of muenschens, but
all are misstypes of muenchen.
If you pronounce muenschen as moenschen, than you will get another
word. Sounds like "Menschen".
>However, I got a proof of thoroughness in German national character. ;-)
Not really. 8--)
mfg
+ogs
--
O.G. Schwenk -> http://www.home.pages.de/~ogs/
Caelius
<robert...@gmx.net> wrote:
>Armadillo schrieb:
>
>So even if you'll
>find it in some obscure German dictionary I wouldn't say it does really
>*exist*.
>
Right, and there was never a peep from that tree in the woods...
> What good is a word that nobody knows anyway?
I presume that this is some sort of pointed rhetorical question, but
you're not actually serious, are you?
Caelius
Paul Schmitz-Josten
<99uved$7r5$1...@news.kolumbus.fi>:
>A bit sensitive aren't you.
What would you say if someone would rely more on his 20 year old memory
(god bless your teacher) than on answers to his question by native
speakers? You are insisting on that position, so don't wonder about the
reactions.
According to my experience and my behavior in this thread you don't get
different answers because nobody sees any alternative. Me neither.
My proposition is.
Look up the word in a /german/ search engine, e.g. www.metager.de
If your doubts remain, go and ask the same question in
news:de.etc.sprache.deutsch where there are more experts than here, IMHO.
>Very often people who study a language know it
>better than native speakers. I'm sure that there are foreigners who know
>Finnish, my native language, better than I.
Agreed as an exceptional possibility, if the studies and practice take
place in the present time. But you, my friend, refer to something
different.
Ciao,
Paul
Robert Lange
> What is a matter with you guys? I simpy ask if anyone knows a word that
> sounds like münschen and you get pissed off.
No, I didn't get pissed off. I just wanted to help you.
> It is not that I do not blieve you
Well, I had got the impression that you did not believe the other
posters. So I thought another native German vote might convince you.
> but on the other hand nobody knows every damn outdated slang word of
> their mother tongue.
That's certainly true. If you're really interested in historic German,
slang, dialects ... I really recommend news:de.etc.sprache.deutsch.
You'll find comprehensive expert knowledge there.
> However, I got a proof of thoroughness in German national character. ;-)
All generalizations are false ;-)
> Jukka
.. Robert
Robert Lange
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:12:07 +0200, Robert Lange
> <robert...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> So even if you'll find it in some obscure German dictionary I wouldn't
>> say it does really *exist*.
> Right, and there was never a peep from that tree in the woods...
Sorry, I don't know this saying.
>> What good is a word that nobody knows anyway?
> I presume that this is some sort of pointed rhetorical question, but
> you're not actually serious, are you?
Well, I am indeed serious. How do words come into existence? Not through
dictionaries, but through *usage*. How do they fade out of existence? --
Through non-usage.
So when several native speakers tell you that they don't know a certain
word then it pretty surely really does not exist. At least not in the
contemporary standard language.
> Caelius
.. Robert
Alwyn
<robert...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Caelius schrieb:
>
> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:12:07 +0200, Robert Lange
> > <robert...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> >> So even if you'll find it in some obscure German dictionary I wouldn't
> >> say it does really *exist*.
>
> > Right, and there was never a peep from that tree in the woods...
>
> Sorry, I don't know this saying.
I've never heard it either.
In dictionaries, there are famously 'ghost words', words that have never
existed but have crept into the book by accident.
> >> What good is a word that nobody knows anyway?
>
> > I presume that this is some sort of pointed rhetorical question, but
> > you're not actually serious, are you?
>
> Well, I am indeed serious. How do words come into existence? Not through
> dictionaries, but through *usage*. How do they fade out of existence? --
> Through non-usage.
>
> So when several native speakers tell you that they don't know a certain
> word then it pretty surely really does not exist. At least not in the
> contemporary standard language.
But of course. Your man is a troll, I think, out to cause trouble.
Alwyn
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <dcpv99...@ID-35120.user.cis.dfn.de>, Robert Lange
><robert...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> Caelius schrieb:
>>
>> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:12:07 +0200, Robert Lange
>> > <robert...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> So even if you'll find it in some obscure German dictionary I wouldn't
>> >> say it does really *exist*.
>>
>> > Right, and there was never a peep from that tree in the woods...
>>
>> Sorry, I don't know this saying.
>
>I've never heard it either.
It's an allusion to the famous philosophical question, "If a tree falls in
the woods and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?"
Caelius' answer in this case is "Yes." Robert's is "It's irrelevant. No
one is going to confuse a sound they can't hear with a sound they can."
>In dictionaries, there are famously 'ghost words', words that have never
>existed but have crept into the book by accident.
And some that are put there by lexicographers to snare plagiarists.
>> >> What good is a word that nobody knows anyway?
>>
>> > I presume that this is some sort of pointed rhetorical question, but
>> > you're not actually serious, are you?
>>
>> Well, I am indeed serious. How do words come into existence? Not through
>> dictionaries, but through *usage*. How do they fade out of existence? --
>> Through non-usage.
>>
>> So when several native speakers tell you that they don't know a certain
>> word then it pretty surely really does not exist. At least not in the
>> contemporary standard language.
>
>But of course. Your man is a troll, I think, out to cause trouble.
Not a troll, a philologist. There are minor differences.
If a word doesn't exist in the "contemporary standard language", it may
not be completely irrelevant, particularly from the point of view of a
historian of the language--but it is as far as answering Jukka's ques-
tion goes. He said that his teacher told them to avoid saying <muen-
schen> for <Muenchen> not simply because it wasn't theoretically correct,
but due to the practical consequences.
Several native speakers of German have told him, "Your teacher was simply
wrong; there are no practical consequences." But he, showing a trust in
his teacher's infallibility that would make the Pope envious, refuses to
believe them.
Since Jukka seems to really want <muenschen> to mean something, I will
oblige. The general Low Saxon (cf. our recent discussion of "Platt-
deutsch") cognate for <Mensch> is <minsch>, plural <minschen>. However,
it tends to be used a little more pejoratively than its Standard German
equivalent. In the dialects spoken around Hamburg ("North Low Saxon" =
Ger. <Nordniedersaechsisch>), [i] is often rounded to [y]. E.g. <ik buen>
for Standard German <ich bin>.
So it's not inconceivable that there is a village near Cuxhaven or some-
place where <muenschen> would be interpreted as something like "pitiful
people". If Jukka ever finds himself there, he should be sure to follow
his teacher's injunction and pronounce <Muenchen> with the proper frica-
tive, lest he be tarred, feathered, and left adrift on skiff in the firth.
Caelius
<robert...@gmx.net> wrote:
>Caelius schrieb:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:12:07 +0200, Robert Lange
>> <robert...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>> So even if you'll find it in some obscure German dictionary I wouldn't
>>> say it does really *exist*.
>
>> Right, and there was never a peep from that tree in the woods...
>
>Sorry, I don't know this saying.
>
A famous koan--if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there to
hear it, does it make a sound?
>>> What good is a word that nobody knows anyway?
>
>> I presume that this is some sort of pointed rhetorical question, but
>> you're not actually serious, are you?
>
>Well, I am indeed serious. How do words come into existence? Not through
>dictionaries, but through *usage*. How do they fade out of existence? --
>Through non-usage.
>
True enough. What I have a problem with is your idea that a word
fades out of existence--for such a belief robs a language of its
history and its powerful archaisms. And it seems rather foolish to
confound usage and existence.
>So when several native speakers tell you that they don't know a certain
>word then it pretty surely really does not exist. At least not in the
>contemporary standard language.
>
Yes, in the main, I think that I would agree with you, but the way you
crouch your argument in the metaphysical strikes me as peculiar. I
originally thought that you were trying to press some larger point
about the larger notions of words and their ontology.
Caelius
Caelius
>In article <dcpv99...@ID-35120.user.cis.dfn.de>, Robert Lange
><robert...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> Caelius schrieb:
>In dictionaries, there are famously 'ghost words', words that have never
>existed but have crept into the book by accident.
>
Do you have any examples? I'd be curious to see something like this.
>But of course. Your man is a troll, I think, out to cause trouble.
>
Can't see why you would say this: I just asked a question.
Caelius
Caelius
>>But of course. Your man is a troll, I think, out to cause trouble.
>
>Not a troll, a philologist. There are minor differences.
>
Caelius
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Caelius <thelon...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:29:41 +0100, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <dcpv99...@ID-35120.user.cis.dfn.de>, Robert Lange
>><robert...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Caelius schrieb:
>
>>In dictionaries, there are famously 'ghost words', words that have never
>>existed but have crept into the book by accident.
>>
>Do you have any examples? I'd be curious to see something like this.
From the OED:
Skeat in N. & Q; 7th Ser. V. 504/1 "The word meant is estures, bad
spelling of estres; and eftures is a ghost-word."
Caelius
Gund v. Brighoff) wrote:
>In article <3ac47c5...@news.ox.ac.uk>,
>Caelius <thelon...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:29:41 +0100, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <dcpv99...@ID-35120.user.cis.dfn.de>, Robert Lange
>>><robert...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Caelius schrieb:
>>
>>>In dictionaries, there are famously 'ghost words', words that have never
>>>existed but have crept into the book by accident.
>>>
>>Do you have any examples? I'd be curious to see something like this.
>[snip]
>
>From the OED:
>
>Skeat in N. & Q; 7th Ser. V. 504/1 "The word meant is estures, bad
>spelling of estres; and eftures is a ghost-word."
Interesting. Do you know of any more substantial examples--of, say,
various editors arguing about whether or not a word actually exists or
is worthy of lexical inclusion? Calling "eftures" (the result of
nothing more than a print error) a "ghost-word" seems to give a little
more attention than it deserves. It's an error pure and simple, and
since it does not appear to have caught on with any segment of the
population, one whose exclusion would not be questioned.
I wonder, however, if anyone would call my bluff if I tried to use
"eftures" in an academic context. It has a certain elevated sound,
and looks somewhat French: it may just work.
Caelius
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
In article <3ac385d9...@news.ox.ac.uk>,
Caelius <thelon...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:36:55 GMT, de...@midway.uchicago.edu (D. Edward
>Gund v. Brighoff) wrote:
>
>>In article <3ac47c5...@news.ox.ac.uk>,
>>Caelius <thelon...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:29:41 +0100, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <dcpv99...@ID-35120.user.cis.dfn.de>, Robert Lange
>>>><robert...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Caelius schrieb:
>>>
>>>>In dictionaries, there are famously 'ghost words', words that have never
>>>>existed but have crept into the book by accident.
>>>>
>>>Do you have any examples? I'd be curious to see something like this.
>>[snip]
>>
>>From the OED:
>>
>>Skeat in N. & Q; 7th Ser. V. 504/1 "The word meant is estures, bad
>>spelling of estres; and eftures is a ghost-word."
>
>Interesting. Do you know of any more substantial examples--of, say,
>various editors arguing about whether or not a word actually exists or
>is worthy of lexical inclusion?
See:
<http://www.wordways.com/ghost.htm>
for some examples. You could also ask on sci.lang; I'm sure there are
some amateur and professional lexicographers there who can recount some
celebrated examples.
>Calling "eftures" (the result of
>nothing more than a print error) a "ghost-word" seems to give a little
>more attention than it deserves. It's an error pure and simple, and
>since it does not appear to have caught on with any segment of the
>population, one whose exclusion would not be questioned.
"ghost words" don't have to catch on; in fact, most don't. They simply
have to turn up in glosses or dictionary entries. I'm surprised you
haven't run up against any in your philological investigations. All it
takes is for one scholar to read a misspelled, incomplete, or otherwise
mangled bit of text as a new "word", assign it a meaning based on context,
and include it in a note or a gloss. Bam! You've got a ghost word.
I'm more familiar with another subspecies, those propagated by amateur
comparative linguists. Regularly, one comes across purported lists of
"cognate" words between diverse languages, such as Latvian and Zuni.
Upon closer examination, many of the words turn out to be bogus, the re-
sult of misreading dictionary entries, misanalysing compounds, or what
have you. Basque is a particularly rich source of these since (a) few
serious linguists, let alone amateur ones, know diddly about it and
(b) one of the first major modern dictionaries was filled with ghost
words, neologisms and false etymological speculations which were not
clearly distinguished from actual attested words.
The problem gets compounded when these enthusiasts quote each other's
lists, none of them bothering to check with an authoritative lexicograph-
ical resources. Like most problems of this sort, this has been exacerb-
ated by the growth of the Internet.
>I wonder, however, if anyone would call my bluff if I tried to use
>"eftures" in an academic context. It has a certain elevated sound,
>and looks somewhat French: it may just work.
Alwyn
> In article <alwyn-1ABDF6....@news.demon.co.uk>,
> Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <dcpv99...@ID-35120.user.cis.dfn.de>, Robert Lange
> ><robert...@gmx.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Caelius schrieb:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:12:07 +0200, Robert Lange
> >> > <robert...@gmx.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> So even if you'll find it in some obscure German dictionary I
> >> >> wouldn't
> >> >> say it does really *exist*.
> >>
> >> > Right, and there was never a peep from that tree in the woods...
> >>
> >> Sorry, I don't know this saying.
> >
> >I've never heard it either.
>
> It's an allusion to the famous philosophical question, "If a tree falls
> in
> the woods and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?"
> Caelius' answer in this case is "Yes." Robert's is "It's irrelevant. No
> one is going to confuse a sound they can't hear with a sound they can."
That was most enlightening. Thank you.
<snip>
> >But of course. Your man is a troll, I think, out to cause trouble.
>
> Not a troll, a philologist. There are minor differences.
Well, well. Then apologies are due to Caelius.
> If a word doesn't exist in the "contemporary standard language", it may
> not be completely irrelevant, particularly from the point of view of a
> historian of the language--but it is as far as answering Jukka's ques-
> tion goes. He said that his teacher told them to avoid saying <muen-
> schen> for <Muenchen> not simply because it wasn't theoretically correct,
> but due to the practical consequences.
>
> Several native speakers of German have told him, "Your teacher was simply
> wrong; there are no practical consequences." But he, showing a trust in
> his teacher's infallibility that would make the Pope envious, refuses to
> believe them.
We had something similar here recently, in the 'Es ist zu lachen'
thread. And further back, there was an altogether more sinister dispute
about the meaning of the word 'ausrotten' as used by Himmler in his
Posen speech of 1944.
> Since Jukka seems to really want <muenschen> to mean something, I will
> oblige. The general Low Saxon (cf. our recent discussion of "Platt-
> deutsch") cognate for <Mensch> is <minsch>, plural <minschen>. However,
> it tends to be used a little more pejoratively than its Standard German
> equivalent. In the dialects spoken around Hamburg ("North Low Saxon" =
> Ger. <Nordniedersaechsisch>), [i] is often rounded to [y]. E.g. <ik
> buen> for Standard German <ich bin>.
>
> So it's not inconceivable that there is a village near Cuxhaven or some-
> place where <muenschen> would be interpreted as something like "pitiful
> people". If Jukka ever finds himself there, he should be sure to follow
> his teacher's injunction and pronounce <Muenchen> with the proper frica-
> tive, lest he be tarred, feathered, and left adrift on skiff in the
> firth.
Now that is ingenious, I have to say. :-)
Alwyn
Robert Lange
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:54:37 +0200, Robert Lange
> <robert...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> How do words come into existence? Not through dictionaries, but through
>> *usage*. How do they fade out of existence? -- Through non-usage.
> True enough. What I have a problem with is your idea that a word
> fades out of existence--for such a belief robs a language of its
> history and its powerful archaisms.
Well, I don't think my beliefs rob anybody of anything ;-)
> And it seems rather foolish to confound usage and existence.
It depends on the definition of "existence". To me language is primarily
what people speak, secondarily what they write. If a word is never
beeing spoken nor written (anymore) it therefore does not exist
(anymore). Of course it may have existed, it may be studied and it may
even come into existence again. In this way existence depends on usage.
>> So when several native speakers tell you that they don't know a certain
>> word then it pretty surely really does not exist. At least not in the
>> contemporary standard language.
> Yes, in the main, I think that I would agree with you, but the way
> you crouch your argument in the metaphysical strikes me as peculiar.
I certainly didn't mean to be metaphysical, just practical. If the
speakers of a language don't know a certain word it really doesn't help
to instist on its existence -- people will just not understand it.
> Caelius
.. Robert
Caelius
<robert...@gmx.net> wrote:
>Caelius schrieb:
>
>> And it seems rather foolish to confound usage and existence.
>
>It depends on the definition of "existence". To me language is primarily
>what people speak, secondarily what they write. If a word is never
>beeing spoken nor written (anymore) it therefore does not exist
>(anymore). Of course it may have existed, it may be studied and it may
>even come into existence again. In this way existence depends on usage.
>
I understand your point, but I'm perfectly willing to allow words,
say, in Shakespeare, or Milton, for instance, that are no longer used,
be it in speech or in writing, existence. Take, the adj. "sere," for
example. No one (that I know of, or have ever counted) uses it
nowadays. It simply lies happily on the page, whiling away its
existence.
>>> So when several native speakers tell you that they don't know a certain
>>> word then it pretty surely really does not exist. At least not in the
>>> contemporary standard language.
>
That last qualifying fragment makes all the difference.
>> Yes, in the main, I think that I would agree with you, but the way
>> you crouch your argument in the metaphysical strikes me as peculiar.
>
>I certainly didn't mean to be metaphysical, just practical. If the
>speakers of a language don't know a certain word it really doesn't help
>to instist on its existence -- people will just not understand it.
>
Well, true. Given the context of the original post, your thinking is
certainly sound. Sometimes, however, especially with technical
vocabulary, it will just depend on finding the right people. If
asked, I can't imagine that many native speakers of English would say
that "exergue" is a word, and yet I'll verify its existence.
Caelius
Alexander Deubelbeiss
Armadillo schrieb in Nachricht <99vdd0$j2b$1...@news.kolumbus.fi>...
>What is a matter with you guys? I simpy ask if anyone knows a word that
>sounds like münschen and you get pissed off.
Hm... not exactly. You ask if anyone knows a word that sounds like münschen,
people suggest a few possibilities, you say they can't be right because they
don't sound _exactly_ like the thing you're looking for, and there must be a
word nobody's telling you about because someone you know once mentioned it.
People tell you again that no such word exists, so you say "but I _want_
one!" _This_ is the point where people get pissed off.
Andy
Mhotmail.com> wrote
[]
>I wonder, however, if anyone would call my bluff if I tried to use
>"eftures" in an academic context. It has a certain elevated sound,
>and looks somewhat French: it may just work.
>
--
Andy
For Austrian philately <URL: http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/austamps/>
For Lupus <URL: http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/lupus/>
For my other interests <URL: http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/>
Oliver Gassner
>I simpy ask if anyone knows a word that
>sounds like münschen and you get pissed off.
You haven't seen us getting pissed off.
OG
--
"Vom Wahrsagen läßt es sichs wohl leben in der Welt,
aber nicht vom Wahrheit sagen." --Lichtenberg
Link me, Literatur am Draht --> http://www.carpe.com/lit/
I'm a Klick! Homepage --> http://www.carpe.com/
Inge Crego
was "Moenchen" which means "monks" later it turned into Muenchen. That is
why their symbol is that of a child in a black robe. City build by monks
"Robert Lange" <robert...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:7a5v99...@ID-35120.user.cis.dfn.de...