Incredibly old and overdone. Figured I'd try something different. Plus, no one is insane enough to take my comment at face value, so it matters little.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Incredibly old and overdone. Figured I'd try something different. Plus, no one is insane enough to take my comment at face value, so it matters little.
Do any fans of forum games happen to have Men of War: Assault Squad 2? I got an idea for a forum game but I'm not sure if there's enough players.
I have it but have been unable to play the game for over a year because it just stopped working.
The political equivalent of apatheism ('æpəθiəzm, not əp'æθiəzm). But apoliticalism/apathylism just doesn't sound as catchy.
I would like to run one of these, but I have never done it before. Can anyone help me?
I'd very much recommend that you join one of the ongoing forum games to get some practical experience and see how other people GM their games.
I believe there is also a thread with tips for budding GMs, perhaps someone else can link that one?
I believe there is also a thread with tips for budding GMs, perhaps someone else can link that one?
You could do that too, yes. But then I can't get the sentence to look anything, but really strange. The verb form is to hygge. With present being hygger and past being hyggede. Though I guess when used in English it would take English conjugation to hygge/hygges and hygged. Which does sound strange though.
But "does that hygge you?" still isn't proper usage. Don't know why, but it just never is used if in that way. You can't really have something hygge with you being object, unless that something is yourself. Otherwise the adjective is used and it is rewritten to asking whether that something is hyggeligt.
But you can say e.g.: She and I hygge us on the beach."
If I were to use the verb in Aziz' sentence then I would say: Hygge you you?, where the second you is a conjugation of you (analogue to how me is a conjugation of I), but that doesn't exist in English anymore, so it ends up sounding really strange. Hence why I would rewrite it to use the adjective.
And the normal way to get around that conjugation of you having vanished, i.e. using yourself, doesn't work here at all.
But "that" is hygging me; I'm not hygging myself in this instance. I'm receiving hygge from without.
Then I would say that it is hyggeligt. I.e. you are hygging because what you are doing is hyggeligt.
I really don't think you can say that. I can't say for sure, but to me it sounds really really strange. So if you can it would be really archaic---and that is coming from somebody who already speaks somewhat archaic.
It is either you who are hygging you at say the ball. Or the ball is hyggeligt.
Though there we have the answer to translating that "hygge you you" thing. Are you hygging you? That would be the appropriate way to ask the question, I think.
These theoretical hygges are harder to understand than the hygges that I've experienced.
You can't understand how you can hygge at say a ball? Or at a fairground?
I've hygged in all sorts of places. It's just the grammatical construct that I'm still trying to grasp.