>>48235965Again, you're conflating different people. Next, I stayed on the original topic even wondering your usage of the website.
See
>Did you even read what I said? I was defending particle usage but if you are so inclined to argue this point in particular then look at the screenshot from before (>>48229143 (You)) and acknowledge that >>48232169 has a point.Third, I asked for the sources you're taking about with this part of your statement
>words from old dictionaries that even retained the Spanish equivalents, therefore, from official sourcesFourth, my KWF source from earlier notes that the usage of "mag-" for imperative verbs is valid with its differences with "-um."
Fifth, I again must state that I fail to see how the absence of a word that I do not think sees much usage in the common vernacular of today renders the other words of the unreliable websites moot. Again, I only argued on this point because you moved from the original premise of this argument that his usage of particle was apparently "wrong."
