Proofreading Service - Pain in the English
Proofreading Service - Pain in the English

Your Pain Is Our Pleasure

24-Hour Proofreading Service—We proofread your Google Docs or Microsoft Word files. We hate grammatical errors with passion. Learn More

Proofreading Service - Pain in the English
Proofreading Service - Pain in the English

Your Pain Is Our Pleasure

24-Hour Proofreading Service—We proofread your Google Docs or Microsoft Word files. We hate grammatical errors with passion. Learn More

“Anglish”

Has anyone come across “Anglish”? Anglish or Saxon is described as “...a form of English linguistic purism, which favours words of native (Germanic) origin over those of foreign (mainly Romance and Greek) origin.”

Does anybody have an opinion or thoughts on “Anglish”...

Submit Your Comment

or fill in the name and email fields below:

Comments

Wow! did not think I would get an answer for days. Thanks.

Sounds all good to me though I'm guessing onbower and onlighten are not working the same prefix as in 'ongoing'?

How about 'embedded' (hack) which folk have willfully reworded into the more truthful and more English 'inbeds' is thist the 'prefix' in- + bed, or the 'word' in + bed?

I wonder how eath it would be to cleanup those English words stuck with Romance affixes. Not yet come upon a fullstanding English affix list anywhere. Doesn't help that whether the endings of words like downset, lowset, waterborne, seaborne, homeborn, newborn, sunkiss, bekiss etc etc are thought of as affixes or not is beyond my ken.

Stanmund Mar-09-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Hi, Stanmund:

Yes, "ongoing" uses the same prefix. O.E. 'on' is an unstressed variant of 'an', meaning "in, on, into". It would be used (in O.E.) in many instances where "in-" is used today. (cf. "inward", O.E. inneweard, from O.E. inne "in" + -weard). Note, O.E. "a(n)-,on-,in-" is not to be confused with Latin "in-". Other examples include, arise, awake, ashame, alive, asleep, abroad, afoot, anew, abreast, upon, etc.

From what is known, O.E. seemes to have a lot more suffixes than prefixes. A great deal of the suffixes survive in modern English. Unfortunately, the reverse seems to be true fro the prefixes.

As for O.E. affixes, Wiktionary will get you started in the right way: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Old_English_affixes

Also, here is the link to a great book, which has a good list of prefixes and suffixes:

http://books.google.com/books?id=h0RSfnHNdKUC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=old+english+affixes&source=bl&ots=OeowLqzLfC&sig=NO00o9S8cLh3JKfP2FUDgd-Cav8&hl=en&ei=sT54TdmBLY_QsAPjlLmWAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=old%20english%20affixes&f=false

Ængelfolc Mar-09-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Ængelfolc: about the academic word list: www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/academic/

This is the stuff which non-native speakers have to learn. It is mostly very difficult to find real english substitutes for these words. Many are very specific in their meaning(s) and usage(s). Whilst I hate,
loathe and (mildly) detest them, there seems little option. a few examples:
1) analyse/analyst/analysis "check" is just not accurate enough. "breakdown" is actually used for figures in business. Hungarian does better with "elemez" etc. but analyze has become an international loan word for several languages so what would be the point of substituting some weird Anglish word that no-one recognises?
2) approach: "near" (verb) is a nice substitute for literal meaning but "approach" is also a noun meaning "method" "way of tackling a problem" ; then there's "unapproachable" etc "unnearable" just doesn't cut it.
3) assume/assumption/unassuming: of course we say "I take it that.." but that doesn't translate into a intelligible noun like "it-taking". Better to stop people writing "based on the assumption that..." which is tautologous.
And there's another 600 academic words to go....
So I don't see any real point in targeting academic language.
On the other hand, I would love to replace diarrhea and pusillanimous with something I could spell, like "throughfall" and "cowardly"
Finally (and teasingly) my etymology isn't very good as I find sound shifts very grimm indeed, but surely we can allow "capital" as germanic since it has the same roots as "Haupt" ..... teehee!
Thanks for the frankish/french words in english. Some of them I would never have guessed. Uncloudedly this has been a travail of love for you. udv

jayles Mar-10-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Ængelfolc: I would take issue with your earlier assertion that old english "fell into disuse" and the "bourgeousie became embarrassed..believing english was vulgar".
You seem in danger of swallowing the cover-up line. This is the truth:
Old english died because its writers and leaders were slaughtered by the invaders.
This from the BBC:
"The bloody violence of the Norman Conquest has become entrenched in history thanks to the legendary death-bed confession of William the Conqueror; contemporary commentator Orderic Vitalis describes William repenting for, "the slaughter and banishment" by which he "subjugated England". In 1066 the entire ruling class of Saxon thegns, or landowners, was replaced; kingdoms were redrawn and a new language was introduced. For every Anglo-Saxon settlement sacked, a Norman stronghold appeared." Old English was SLAUGHTERED.

jayles Mar-10-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

It's likely I have misunderstood but what's wrong with: 'sift' or 'sift over' for 'analyse'

Even the likes of:

chew over
think through
soakup, asoak
weigh
delve
indeem (deem)
toothcomb
asweat (sweat out info)
winkle
amindstake
keenout
anighsight, asight, asighten, allsight, (hindsight, foresight, oversight)
stripout
nearhand
burn
abrand
siftfeed
ameal
aheadwork
overbrood

Your forgetting most everyday English speakers (like myself) do not have a marked understanding of the 'dead on' meaning of words like 'analyse'

With a little bit of tweaking or in context, some of the above words would work as a 'stand in' for most folk.

Stanmund Mar-11-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

ameal = analyse

The study will ameal the psychological and physiological impact of draughts on Whooper swans.

The above usage works for me in the sense of the digestion of something in ones mind and working out its part. Influenced by:

making a meal out of something
mulling something over
to mill through something
anneal (to kindle properties of something)

Not sure if I have got the prefix right though...

ameal (awake aware anew)
onmeal (ongoing)
anmeal (anneal)

Stanmund Mar-11-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

If analysis/analyze/analyst/analytical are understood by a billion hominids on this planet, why change? It has the same roots as "on+loosen". Breakdown is similarly widely understood and has an identical meaning in the right context; but it is difficult to form the person "breaker-downer" or an adjective "downbreaking". Why try to create new words when the existing ones are so widely used and well understood?
Or (in jest): "Police are chewing over tissue samples from the corpse". (ie analysing)

jayles Mar-11-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Analysis is probably not the best example to support your point, Stanmund, although I get your meaning. Many languages unfortunately use "analysis" (or a derivation thereof), too. Some foreign words have become commonly useful in the modern age.

Although, look at good old Icelandic. They made up their very own word for this concept instead of adopting the Greek word: greining (from the verb 'greina'). Ex. stærðfræðigreining (mathematical analysis). They have their own word for mathematics, too: stærð (quantity, size) + -fræði (study of-; -ology) = loosely, 'the study of quantities'. Ingeniuous! Ænglisc, given the same quiet development as Icelandic, I'm sure would also have a native catch-all word for 'analysis'.

Analysis (from PIE base *ano- via Gk. 'ana') + lysis (from PIE *leu- through Gk. 'lyein'). "Breakdown" is a perfectly good synonym, means the same thing, and is just as clear as "Analysis" in all contexts.

Forming an agent noun would not be difficult at all as suggested, but it would probably have to be contextually specific. Ex. "Stock Analyst" => "Stock Watcher". We already have agent nouns with certain professions i.e. "psychiatrist" => 'shrink' or 'head-shrinker'; "accountant" => 'bookkeeper'. Instead of saying 'metal chemical test analyst', we call that person an 'assayer'. It would be nice to call a "doctor or physician" a "healer" instead. It is much more specific and comforting, since it describes what this person is actually supposed to do.

The same breakdown could be done with "synthesis". One could simply choose to say in English, "bring together, blend, weld(-ing), shape(-ing)", brew(-ing), make(-ing) one, mishmash(-ing), a.s.f., depending on the situation. Another example: "combine" => Eng. twin, match (up), mate, yoke, wed, etc. Native speakers, of course, choose words this way quite often. The English words are there for the choosing. Old English words could be revived through the education system.

jayles is right, though, about the way academia teaches non-native speakers. They teach them the Latin and Greek words, especially regarding science, because they are considered higher register words and have been spread World-wide in their use. The academics have convinced non-native speakers that they are speaking English, so it will be nigh impossible to abruptly change the academic, financial, legal, and political lexicons. And, I am not sure that messing with all of them is such a good idea. That said, time and being steadfast of purpose are required to make this type of monumental change.

The general notion of the so-called "educated" that English words are low-brow, unsophisticated, and vulgar sadly still persists today like it did from 1066 onward.

I have to get in at least one false Latin-French word that's really Germanic!

spy (from Frankish *spehon; ultimately from P.Gmc. *spekh-)

More later...

Ængelfolc Mar-13-2011

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Thank you jayles and ÆngelfolC

RE the moot & stuff

Like shown on my own posts, millions and millions of folk in the UK are plighted in being weak to naught in the meanings of even straightforward English grammar terms and workings. Ironically, one of the outcomes of all the French, Latin and Greek influence within English, is that it handicaps the learning of foreign tongues! (like it dose for me in learning French) Even elementary English grammar guides seem to thwart their own ends, in selfishly explaining and defining any given grammar term by wielding yet more selfsame bewildering grammar terms as an explanation! Even though the 'names' of these grammar terms can ring bells going back years, the best I have ever gotten in English grammar 'meaning' is something like verb = doing word.

Are folk over at The Anglish Moot working on ednewing English grammar terms? - It would without a shadow help us grammarweaklings in strengthening our English and Anglish, and frowardly, picking up French and other foreign tongues! Bytheway, why has 'renew' been anewed as 'ednew' rather than anew?

Is there a TAM leaf sworn to the marketing of Anglish? wish the Anglish Moot had a more conventional forum/messageboard for brainstorming and rattling out thoughts on all things Anglish. Wouldn't mind giving a go a thread on the potential of stuff like Lord of The Rings, Harry Potter etc trend in films to market Anglish, or fingering any other openings which would boost the profile of Anglish into the mainstream. Even the oddball English speech of the Yoda character in Star Wars films makes an interesting case study. Would of thought for Anglishlovers the upcoming film: The Hobbit is a golden opening for the whole Anglish movement 'to go big' by selling itself to the film's speechwriters. Indeed building on the successful usage of the older English witnessed in LOTR films. Like in Tolkein's books, reckon the pick of English brooked in the LOTR films are underlying thrills which even its newer moviegoers now come to expect. Anyway, a further Anglish boosting of The Hobbit film script has gotta strengthen the the swagger of the resulting film's convincingness. Would like to think the Tolkein estate and the man himself would approve. Anyway, this whole Anglish thing seems to have a thrilling and moreish mark to it - and if Anglish hunts down its game many a willing amongst the worldwide stocks of the whole of 'swords and scorcery' market out there.

And how about the UK folk music scene as another likely welcoming field to make inroads on. One would think the business of folk music, folk lore and 'folk speech' (Anglish) would be openminded to eachother and wed the creative skills of both. Maybe something like a sponsored English Folk music festival or competition onbowered in an Anglish theme?

I truly like the three kegged word 'comeuppance' but like picking at a scab, I want rid of the Romance suffix for a English rooted one. I'm not getting the drift of the -ance suffix - which would be the nowadays English/Anglish endings that cognate with -ance?

Hope this has been more coherent than my previous posts.

Stanmund Mar-13-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_words_of_Germanic_origin
wikipedia....list of french words of germanic origin
if you haven't checked it out already

jayles Mar-14-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

And:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Latinates_of_Germanic_origin

All of which suggests to me that it really is hard to guess the true origin of even obviously
latinate words. Unless somehow we all learn this list. It's all greek to me anyway.

jayles Mar-14-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

ed- is the Old English fore-wordling which has the same meaning as the latin re-.

Some updated Old English words: edquick (revive), edkenn( regenerate) edbirth (regenerate), edstathel (restore, reestablish), edwend (return).

OE also had eft-, as in eftcome (return), eftmind (remember), eftsit (reside), eftarise (resurrect), efty (repeat).

JM1 Mar-15-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

@Stanmund: I am not so sure that there is anything wrong with "comeuppance". I think there is a major problem with the unnecessary borrowing of words that are used in place of true English words. Words like this, however, deserve to be handled differently.

The suffix "-ance" is from L. -antia and -entia (-ance, -ence). It is a muddled suffix with muddled usage. Basically, this suffix is attached to verbs, and is used to form abstract nouns of process. act, state, or quality.

"Comeuppance", according to the Merriam-Webster wordbook, define the word thusly: a deserved rebuke or penalty.

If pressed to drop the suffix, I guess one could say, "one day soon, you'll have your coming up!" or "the bad guys finally got their comeupness", or something like that. But why try to change a 152 year old relatively modern word?

I'd argue that this word belongs in the category of Anglo-Latin/Norman Hybrid. It is an outgrowth from the combination of Ænglisc and Normaund (Latin/Norse-French).The word itself was not borrowed, it was created. Only the suffix was borrowed. So, the word is still a Germanic word with a little Latin flavor. If still put off, why not simply say, "you'll get yours" or "you will have a reckoning/ to reckon for your misdeeds"?

If English is to go back to its roots, one has to be mindful when choosing words. For example, instead of using "holy spirit", choose "holy ghost". Describe someone as "lively" instead of "vivacious". If you think someone is "brilliant", call them "bright", "brainy", "gifted", "quick-witted", "whiz kid", "smart", "clever", "keen", "crafty", "wise" or "knowing" (but not knowledgeable...-able is from L.-ibilis, -abilis).

Folks have to relearn (L."re" + O.E. leornian, which is from P.Gmc. *liznojan) the English words that replace the Latin-French and Greek ones they are comfortable using. Once folks begin speaking more Germanic English and the foreign words are diminished in the culture, then new "Germanic rooted" words will naturally emerge.

Ængelfolc Mar-15-2011

2 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

@Ængelfolc

As it happens I worthy the word 'Comeuppance' for its blend of three wordbits. It is not so much -ancegate, but myself balking at not finding a good homborn match for it that works. Anyway, I would rather it is wielded in its nowadays fullness than folk not using it.

Don't know how, but for some weird reason the following diminutive suffix seems to work a little bit for me...

'you'll get your comeupkins'

'the naughty boys finally got their comeupkins'

Stanmund Mar-16-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

@Stanmund: Do you mean that you are looking for an Anglo-Saxon word to mean "a deserved rebuke or penalty", rather than trying to fix "comeuppance"?

The word deserve had many true English alternatives: earn, gain (from Frankish *waidanjan), etc. "Rebuke" is a recycled Germanic word with a Latin prefix: L. "re-" + "buke"(O.Fr. rebuchier)-- from W.Gmc./ Scandinavian *busk, which is from P.Gmc. *busk-). "Rebuke" literally mean "return strike".

Other native similar words/ phrases you might use: Wrath, Eye for an Eye, Reckoning, Reward, Earned Wyrd (i.e. Fate), Get His/Hers/Yours, Get what's coming to you, you shall rue the day, you'll be sorry, I'll see you on--, or you'll get-- the gallows, asf. There is lots to choose from.

The suffix "-kin" would not work. It is a diminutive (cf. Ger. -chen) or "a kin, kind, race, species, family" (cf. Angelcynn, "Angelkin).

Ængelfolc Mar-16-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

The O.E. prefix "ed-" (from P.Gmc. *ith-) is found in cognate form in the word EDDY (a current of water or air running contrary to the main current. From from O.N. iða "whirlpool").

Ængelfolc Mar-16-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

@jayles: "Old English was SLAUGHTERED" is fantastic hyperbole! Too much is always made of the "Conquest". Had Harold Gōdwines sunu not been trying to fight a two-front invasion, things would have certainly been different. Anyway, it cannot be accurate, for if it were, we'd all be speaking French. Why do I write that?

Well, consider that there was an unbroken, normal transmission of (Old) English from one generation to the next (the ruled folks spoke English, not French), but the new generation also received new Norman-French words and expressions, too. An oft used example is that the expression "before-hand" comes from Norman "avaunt-main". It is interesting to note that almost no French loan words are found in English during the 11th and 12th centuries. Furthermore, late West Saxon and South Saxon were spoken well after the "Conquest", even though, the written word was mainly Latin or Anglo-French.

Old English, like most Germanic languages, had a very strong oral tradition which did not discontinue with the slaying of most of the thanes. As a matter of fact, Anglo-Saxons didn't really begin regularly writing things down until their conversion. Prior to 597 AD, hardly anything was ever written down. It must also be noted that the Norman ruling-class never tried to actively supplant the English language at all.

Now, one could make a great argument the Old English literature died with Wulfstan of York in 1023 A.D., but certainly not as a result of the Norman invasion. The transformation form Old English to Middle English is generally dated to 1100 A.D. (not 1066 AD), and it was not a result of the Norman Invasion. Besides, English was already naturally evolving on its own prior to the Norman invasion due to the influx of Scandinavian (Danish & Norwegian) influence. The Norman interference simply sped up the process and took English into a slightly different direction with respect to vocabulary.

Old English simply suffered the same fate that Latin did: It merely transformed into something else--Middle English--but, it was still regarded as English...not Anglo-French (although, "Anglo-Norman" was used to differentiate itself from continental French because Anglo-Norman was quickly being considered too old-fashioned and dialectical shortly after 1066 AD--possibly due English influence? By the middle of the 12th century, Norman-French had lost its "purity". This is supported by the many accounts of English Knights who sent their kids to France to learn French.), Latin-Saxon, or Frenglish. The fact is that English remained the vernacular during the entire Norman occupation, and even those in the highest classes eventually had English as a mother-tongue.

Yes, to assert the bourgeoisie was "embarrassed" did produce a muddled meaning. The Normans were said to be indifferent to English, which is worse. There is no debate that English was considered uncultivated (i.e. vulgar) and socially inferior. Ænglisc did fall out of favor as the language of the nobility, education, diplomacy, commerce (generally), and education being replaced, of course, by Norman-French. The church is not to be excluded, since Latin and French were exclusively used during this period.

When the evidence is closely scrutinized, it is clear that the Norman Conquest had little direct impact on the English language. The fault lies with the church and the academics. Enter the University of Paris that was established in the 12th century. Later on, the "Renaissance scholars" shoulder the rest of the blame. To put a finer point on it, it was, at one time, mandatory that Oxford scholars learn either Latin or French. Latin was the language of education and piety, and French was the language of "Polite Society".

More Germanic words given back to English through N.French:

garden (from Frankish *gardo, from P.Gmc. *gardaz- )
hale (from Frankish *halon or O.Du. halen)
hurt (from Frankish *hurt)
pocket (from Frank. *pokka, from P.Gmc. *puk-)
rabbit (dim. of Flem./M.Du. 'robbe' + Fr. suffix -it.
wage, gage (from Frankish *wadja-, from P.Gmc. *wadiare)
wait (from Frankish *wahton, from P.Gmc. *waken)
wallop, gallop (from Frankish *wala hlaupan)
warden (from Frankish *warding-)
wicket (from P.Gmc. *wik- through Old Norse)

More later...

Ængelfolc Mar-16-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

One more thing, the Saxon Thegns were not all killed in 1066, nor were they all immediately displaced thereafter. That is untrue. The surviving thegns were gradually deprived of their lands in favor of Normans upon their deaths.

Check out The Anglo-Saxon Thegn, AD 449-1066 (1993) by Mark Harrison for a complete treatment of the Anglo-Saxon Thegn.

Ængelfolc Mar-17-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Anyone think 'lifetoll' (influenced by deathtoll, life forms, http://www.morewords.com/contains/life/) hits the spot a bit better than the running English words for /population/ (n) = befolking, bewoners, indwellers, folk, ware, erdeners, allfolks (allhallows), folktell, headtell (head count)

/the town's lifetoll stands at over 10,000/

/the lifetoll of the village is under 200/

/many bits of the earth are in truth underlifed rather than overlifed/

Note: undertolled and underlifetolled don't work as well. Lifed seems to work for 'populated' and even if 'lifetoll' sounds best for 'population' 'under/overlifed' seems to work better for 'under/over populated'

/with a lifetoll of just over 250'000 Plymouth is home to the biggest population center in Devon/

population = lifetoll

populated = lifed

under populated = underlifed

overpopulation = overlifed

population centre = something like lifehub, livingness, lifestand, settleset?


'lifetoll' wielded here... http://vaughndavis.posterous.com/christchurch

'lifed' wielded here... http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lifed

wonderful website: http://www.morewords.com/contains/life/

Stanmund Mar-18-2011

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

@Stanmund: "Toll" is O.E. toll/ toln which is a very early borrowing into Germanic from L.L. tolonium (from Gk. teloneion). Are you sure that you would want to use this word? An English equivalent is "reckoning".

"Lifetoll" seems more akin to "census" in meaning, which could be the very Germanic "Dweller Reckoning".

"Population" (from L. populus "people") means a "multitude of people", not an 'accounting of'. "Folk" or Folk Group/ Folk Throng all work just fine imo.

I think "populated" is rendered best by a word that already exists: "settled". "Settle" (n. & v.) is from O.E. setl (n.)/O.E. setlan (v.), which is from from P.Gmc. *setla-. "Settle" is defined as "to establish in residence; to furnish with inhabitants".

Hence:

* over populated = over-settled (overbefolked)
* under populated = under-settled (underbefolked)
* population centre = Folk middle (Befolking middle); Folk Seat

My 2 cents.

Ængelfolc Mar-18-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Germanic words dressed in French Guise ("French & Guise both being Germanic words, btw):

vogue (from Old Low Ger. *wogon)
guise (from Frankish *wisa)
French (O.E. frencisc "of the Franks", from Franca (from Frankish *Frank))
aubain (suggested from Frankish *alibanus)
cruet (from Frankish *kruka)
franchise (transitive verb. From Frankish *Frank + Gk. -ize, literally 'to make free')
jangle ("to chatter". from Frank. *jangelon)
ramp (from Frankish *rampon)
toupee (from Frankish *top)
arrange (from a- + Frankish *hring)
scabbard (from Frankish *skar + *berg, literally 'blade protector')
warble (from Frankish *werbilon)
stallion (from Frankish *stal)
hoe (from Frankish *hauwa)
slat (from Frankish *slaitan)

Surprising isn't it? More to come...

Ængelfolc Mar-18-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

populate- befolk, from the german bevolkern
population- befolking, from the germna bevolkerung

Though i don't quite like befolking for population since it brings about no toshedness (distinction) between the deed of befolking and the rime of folk. How about folkrime for population?

And for the hardcore anglishers out there there's the word theedship from the OE þéodscipe, one of whose meanings was population. You could even take theed, meaning people and insteaden that for folk giving betheed (populate) and theedrime (population).

The acominglinesses are endless really.

JM1 Mar-18-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

as for the "able'' arveth, OE brooked "ingly" as an afterwordling to mean the same thing. So wishingly (desirable), unawendingly (unchangeable), unbearingly (unbearable). Though it's not a fullcomely toleeser (solution) to the "able" arveth, since we already use ingly in a toshed way. For bisen, "She looked up at the stars wishingly". The clearly does not mean the same thing as She looked up at the stars wishable. In soothlay, the twoth wordstring makes no mindrightness.

"Your child is fullthroughly unbearingly." That's really quite understandingly.

Ya it looks like the afterwordling "ingly" could work. You can usually tell by imblay (from OE ymb meaning around) (context) whether it's being brooked in the first or twoth way.

Hope you understand the bulk of what i just typed, it's all anglish unless i ovelooked something.

JM1 Mar-18-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

"Hope you understand the bulk of what i just typed, it's all anglish unless i ovelooked something."
Nope, beyond me. Tele van a hocipom belole!

jayles Mar-18-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Re: toll as in death toll. I always assumed this was cognate with "Zahl" meaning number in German. And "tell" like "erzaehlen". Am I just plain wrong or merelyl misguided?

jayles Mar-18-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

afterwordling- prefix (pretty opensightly)
brook-From OE meaning to use
arveth- from OE meaning problem, difficulty (akin to german arbeit)
fullcomely- perfect
In soothlay the twoth wordstring makes no mindrightness- In fact, the second sentence makes no sense.
fullthroughly- completely

JM1 Mar-19-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

No i dont think tell and toll are bekinned in any way. Toll stems from greek meaning tax or something and tell is germanic.

JM1 Mar-19-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Etymologies for "tell" and "toll":

1. "Tell" (v.): O.E. tellan (to calculate, to account, to consider, to reckon). From P.Gmc.*taljanan, *talzijanan "to mention in order, enumerate, to count". This verb
has the same P.Germanic base (*talo- 1."number, numerical reckoning" 2."speech, language") as "Tale" (O.E. talu). It is from here that German gets "Zahl, zählen, erzählen", Danish "tal, tale", Dutch "taal, tellen", Norwegian "telle", Icelandic "telja", and so forth.

2. "Toll" (n.)-meaning 'tax, fee' (another root): In addition to the Greek, OE tol, toll, toln (cf. O.Sax tolna) can be from P.Germanic *tullō ("what is counted"). This is the same root as German "Zoll", Dutch "tol", Danish "told", Swedish "tull", Icelandic "tollur", asf.

3. "Toll" (v.)- meaning "to sound with single strokes slowly and regularly repeated, as a bell.": From ME tollen "to draw, lure", which is a 13c. variant of O.E. -tyllan, as in betyllan "to lure, decoy," and fortyllan "draw away, seduce".

Ængelfolc Mar-19-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Ængelfolc: Na, toll!

jayles Mar-19-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

"Old English was SLAUGHTERED...it cannot be accurate, for if it were, we'd all be speaking French." I think we mostly do, looking at all the french and latin borrowings in your reply. Of course there is a smattering of little english grammar particles to hold it all together, but the bricks are frenchie.
Of course it is all a little overblown. Such is the travail of the agent provocateur.
"it was, at one time, mandatory that Oxford scholars learn either Latin or French": certainly was when I went to school. How else can one obfuscate an issue?

jayles Mar-19-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

@jayles: Thanks! LOL! Although, the etymology of the German word "toll" is different.

Today, as you know, "toll" means "terrific, awesome, cool, smashing, etc". Originally, "toll" meant "crazy, mad, frenzied, bedlam" (cf. OE "dol" and "dold", modernly "dull" and "dolt"). OE "dol" (Mod.E "dull"). OE "dold" (Mod.E "dolt") and Ger. "toll" are all from P.Gmc. *dulaz . The meaning 'crazy' is still carried in German words like "tollwütig (rabid), liebestoll (lovelorn/love-crazy)".

So, what are you saying exactly? ;-)

Anyway, more about "toll".

It seems that, at least the German word "Zoll", while apparently a cognate, stems from from P.Gmc.*talo- (root also of "tale" and "tell") according to Friedrich Kluge (pg. 409, An etymological dictionary of the German language). Kluge also states that Anglo-Saxon "tolna" and OE "toll" derive from *talo-, too. He wrties, "The Ger. words are...so old, and correspond so closely, that they must be regarded as of genuie Teut. origin."

"Zoll" in German usually refers to "customs duty/ tariff" and also refers to "inch" (i.e. 2.54 cm). "Maut" in German is a Bavarian word refers to a 'parking toll' or 'bridge toll', asf (from Gothic mota through OHG muta--Latin derivation cannot be correct because the German term is recorded earlier.).

Ængelfolc Mar-19-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

jayles: true Ængelfolc's answer was highly latinized, though bear in mind it's dealing with thoughtlays not often spoken about in every-day speech. Anyway, if the english had one this is some of what Ængelfolc might have wrote:

"Old English was SLAUGHTERED" is dwimmerfast overdriving! Too much is always made of the "Overswithing". Had Harold Gōdwines sunu not been costening to fight a two-front infall, things would have iwiss been toshed. Anyway, it cannot be soothfast, for if it were, we'd all be speaking French. Why do I write that?
Well, hidge that there was an unbroken, wonely yondstelling of (Old) English from one strind to the next (the ruled folks spoke English, not French), but the new strind also fanged new Norman-French words and speechlings, too. An oft brooked bisen is that the speechling "before-hand" comes from Norman "avaunt-main". It is betwixtbeing to bemark that almost no French loan words are found in English whilen the 11th and 12th hundredyears. Furthermore, late West Saxon and South Saxon were spoken well after the "Overswithing", even though, the written word was mainly Latin or Anglo-French.
Old English, like most Germanic irords, had a very strong mouthly thew which did not stop with the slaying of most of the thanes. As an andwork of soothlay, Anglo-Saxons didn't really begin wonely writing things down until their forwending. Before 597 AD, hardly anything was ever written down. It must also be bemarked that the Norman ruling-class never costened to deedfastly insteaden the English speakle at all.
Now, one could make a great kneeting the Old English writcraft died with Wulfstan of York in 1023 A.D., but iwiss not as an outfollow of the Norman infall. The forshaping form Old English to Middle English is imeanly dated to 1100 A.D. (not 1066 AD), and it was not an outfollow of the Norman Infall. Besides, English was already ikindly wharving out on its own before to the Norman infall due to the instream of Scandinavian (Danish & Norwegian) inflow. The Norman betwixt-meddling onefoldly sped up the happen-forth and took English into a slightly toshed whitherness with edsight to wordstock.


Truthfully, it aches me through to think of what english might be had it bided on as a clean speakle. It hurts every time i have to use a foreign word so i try my best not to without making things too hard for readers to understand. But really i could easily never again use a latin or greek word if of course i were just speaking and writing for myself.

JM1 Mar-19-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

@jayles: "I think we mostly do, looking at all the french and latin borrowings in your reply."

We "mostly" do not. Your idea that English is now merely a dialect of French/Latin is utterly unfounded. (good job trying to be an 'agent provocateur'! LOL!) Yes, the schools are loaded with borrowed words that are lauded as "intellectual". Yes, the International Community learns pseudo-English. That's why Anglish Moot, and others, do what they do. The amount of French words & influence borrowed into English is, however, way overblown. Leave it to those so-called "educated" to lie (i.e. 'obfuscate') about the truth.

The ways French affected English:

1) Pronunciation
2) Vocabulary
3) Word order of windy, boastful titles like 'Secretary General', 'Attorney General', 'Surgeon General'

Th-th-that's ALL folks!

I loaded up my comment with Latin-French borrowings for the benefit of the reader to ensure complete understanding of my meaning. I don't have to write with the borrowings, if I choose not to. Why? I speak, read, and write English.

"Of course there is a smattering of little english grammar particles to hold it all together, but the bricks are frenchie." Untrue. I would like to know from which well-spring your ideas flow.

"laud", by the way, is from P.Gmc. *leuthan, and is not French or Latin. ;-)

Ængelfolc Mar-19-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

"if the english had won".....yes indeed; but in fact, in reality, they didn't.
The result is that you can write in vaguely Chaucerian English and people will understand you; but if you invent quasi-old-english words, very few indeed will. The choice as to whether you wish to be understood remains of course yours alone. Time and persistence may improve your chances, but considering the eco-threats to the continued existence of our species I do not myself see it as an overwhelming priority, more a bit of harmless fun on a wet arvo. But I wish you well in your endeavour all the same. Suggest you try to avoid speaking Anglish in interviews for the time being though.

jayles Mar-19-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Ængelfolc: Thank you for your comments including all those latinate words; if you do not object I may use it in class- so many "academic" words and such a good topic.

jayles Mar-19-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

jayles: haha, you are likely right, on a big scale anglish might catch on to a certain degree, but OE words that bear no likeness to any words that we use today stand a much smaller chance of catching on. Unless of course writers and bloggers and academics and such somehow are pulled on by anglish and start using it. Our best hope lies in using already-existing english roots and being creative with them, shaping new words that can be more or less readily understood from their parts.

it sucks though because english has been "stolen" by the world and it's as if native speakers hold no sway over the language anymore, english does not belong to english speakers. ya it would be hard to change the masses, globalisation brings about standardisation, and so we're left with english school children learning their language from dictionaries because of its pathetic foreign vocabulary which makes so many of its words ununderstandable from their parts. Truly we english speakers do not own our language, we do not know it, we just use it blindly, these many-syllabled words for abstract concepts, words that are made up of foreign roots we no nothing of, making these words raw symbols for ideas with no logic to them, no metaphor,no image-evokingness.

Boy, maybe it's hopeless getting the masses to change their english. maybe the place of anglish is tribal, meant for a select few with a heart and mind for saxon-english.

And on a side-note yes we are in all likelihood fucked as far as ecological disaster goes, 98% of old growth forests are gone, more than 90% of large fish in the sea are gone, there's dioxin in every mother's breast-milk we are stripping the earth of all her resources, everyday 200 species go extinct... Though fully unbekinned to our speak-about, I really hate industrial civilisation for what it's doing to the earth and to the human being, dehumanizing and alienating him. Makes me want to leave it all, get a tribe together, and go live in the wild, where of course, we would speak anglish :)

JM1 Mar-19-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

wlyan138: looking on the briteside, 95% of scientific papers are published in English, not Chinese..... there are many people struggling to learn English just to get a job too.

jayles Mar-20-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

@jayles: You are welcome! Which of my ideas would you like to draw from? It is a good thing to talk about. So many "academic" (Gk.) words shouldn't be needed, but sadly, in school (Gk.) they will be. I am not for making new English words as it were. I am for learning about the rich English that has been hidden and/or lost underneath all of the borrowed words.

As I have written many times, some Latin (L.), Greek (early Germanic borrowing from L. Graeci), Dutch, German (L.), and Scandinavian words belong to English since they were borrowed so long ago, put forth a new idea/thing, or may have filled in a gap (like 'Saturday'). Wanton, worthless borrowing is what I am against.

The first Latin words (and some Latin borrowings from Greek) borrowed into West Germanic started about 100 B.C. (food names, Weekday names are loan rewordings, so 'Saturday' (L.) was borrowed). The second Latin borrowing (starting in about 597 AD, Church Latin) came at the time the Anglo-Saxons became Christians. Words like "oil" (O.E. æle, from L. oleum, from Gk. elaion), "butter" (O.E. butere, from L. butyrum; ultimately from Gk. boutyron), cheese (O.E. cyse, from L. caseus), cup (O.E. cuppe, from L.L. cuppa-borrowed throughout Germanic), and so on, are to my mind, good English.

All in all, the Romans (L.) seem to have set up the framework for a way of living that everyone today, more or less, follows. So, it is likely that a little Latin will be left behind everywhere the Romans were, or a little French from the Normans, and that is all right. This is not the same as needlessly borrowing words into English, with the same meanings and ideas, that it already had/has.

It is the third Latin borrowing (beginning in 1066) and the fourth Latin borrowing (beginning in Middle English about 1450) that I think are uncalled for. Your idea about making new "quasi-old-english words" is true, and well taken. Again, why not learn the about the Germanic words that have been gilded in French, the lost Ænglish (before 1066), as well as the English that has been slowly forgotten thanks to academia (Gk.)?

Hope you had your "brellie" (Aussie slang) to withstand the wet "arvo" (Aussie/New Zealand slang)! By the way, this whole thing was written in Germanic English (with befitting borrowings), unless otherwise marked. This shows that there is no need to make up new "quasi-Old English" words ( I did not make any word up), and the Germanic soul of English itself.

French-gilded Germanic word of the day:

remark (L. 're-' + P.Gmc. *marko, through O.H.G. marchon)

Ængelfolc Mar-20-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

missed some:

ultimately (L.L. ultimatus + Gmc. -ly)

Christians (from Church L. christianus, from Eccles. Gk. christianos, from Christos + Gmc. -'s)

quasi (from L. quam)

Sorry!

Ængelfolc Mar-20-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

A few standard words that, in my view, truly belong to English seeing that they were borrowed so long ago (Latin and Germanic folks meeting beginning from 100 B.C.), put forth a new idea/thing, or may have filled in a gap:

1. The sixth day of the Week- Saturday: Germanic folks followed the Roman's framework for setting up the Week. The Germanic folks took out the names of the Roman Gods/ideas, and put in the names of Germanic Gods/ideas. Germanic folks did not have a God for "Saturn", so it was borrowed to fill-in the gap.

* Sunday (Goddess Sunna, sister of Máni, + Day; 'Sun's day')
* Monday (God Máni, brother of Sunna, + Day; 'Moon's day')
* Tuesday (God Tiw/Týr + Day; "Tiw's day.")
* Wednesday (God Woden + Day; 'Woden's Day'
* Thursday (God Thor + Day; 'Thor's Day')
* Friday (Goddess Fríge + Day; 'Feyja's Day')
* Saturday (Roman God Saturn + Day; Saturn's Day)

The Anglo-Saxons had more to do with the Roman's, and that is likely why Saturn was borrowed (cf. Icelandic "laugardagur", Old Norse "Laugardagr"/ sunnunótt, Danish & Bokmål "lørdag", Swedish "lördag", German "Sonnabend"-although "Samstag" (from low Gk. *sambaton", meaning Saturn) is also said).

2. Baptizm (New Holy Idea): Given to Germanic folks by the Christian church. The word is from L. baptizare >> Gk. baptizein >> baptein "to dip, steep, dye, color" >> PIE base *gwabh- "to dip, sink."

3. Church (New Thing): O.E. cirice from W.Germanic *kirika (yet from Gk. kyriake). Germanic folks had few, or likely never had, holy houses of worship the way we have today. This word shows the Greek-to-Germanic headway made by Christian words, by way of the Goths; it was most likely wielded by W.Germanic folks before they became Christians.

4. Kitchen (Food Idea): O.E. cycene, from W.Gmc. *kocina (cf. M.Du. cökene, O.H.G. chuhhina, Ger. Küche, Dan. kjøkken), likely borrowed from V.L. *cocina (L. coquina "kitchen)," from of coquinus "of cooks," from coquus "cook," from coquere "to cook".

5. Priest (New Holy Rank): O.E. preost, shortened from the older Germanic word O.S., O.H.G. prestar, O.Fris. prestere, from V.L. *prester "priest," from L.L. presbyter "presbyter, elder," from Gk. presbyteros.

6. Banana (New Food): This word was borrowed by Spanish or Portuguese from a W. African word, and taken into English.

And, there are so many more! The thing is, not all outside ideas/words are unseemly in English. What else would one call a banana? A "Yellow Bowed Moon Berry"?! How silly.

French-gilded Germanic word of the day:

flank (late O.E. flanc, O.Fr. flanc, from Frankish *hlanca)

Ængelfolc Mar-20-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

My words with "all those latinate words" written only in English and with borrowings that belong:

"Old English was SLAUGHTERED" is far-fetched Balderdash! Too much is always made of the "take-over". Had Harold Gōdwines sunu not been trying to fight a two-way onslaught, things today would indeed have gone another way. Anyway, it cannot be true, for if it were, we'd all be speaking French. Why do I write that?

Well, keep in mind that there was an unbroken, wonted handing-down of (Old) English from one set of offspring to the next (the bridled folks spoke English, not French), but they also picked up new Norman-French words and ways of speaking, too. An oft made likening is that the look of "before-hand" comes from Norman "avaunt-main". It is striking to see that almost no French loan words are found in English between the years 10 and 11 hundred. Furthermore, late West Saxon and South Saxon were spoken well after the Norman take-over, even though, the written word was mainly Latin or Anglo-French.

Old English, like most Germanic tongues, had a very strong way of teaching folklore/ways through the spoken word, which did not end with the slaying of most of the thanes. In truth, Anglo-Saxons didn't begin steadily writing things down until their switch to Christianity. Before 597 AD, hardly anything was ever written down. It must also be said that the Norman blue-bloods never tried to earnestly crowd out the English tongue at all.

Now, one could make a great to-do about the Old English written works dying with Wulfstan of York in 1023 A.D., but indeed not that it was brought about by the Norman onslaught. The switch from Old English to Middle English is given as 1100 A.D. or thereabouts (not 1066 AD), and it was not an outcome of the Norman take-over. Besides, English was already freely broadening itself on its own before the Norman raids, thanks to the inflow and bearing of Scandinavian (Danish & Norwegian) words. The Norman meddling frankly sped up this happening and took English slightly onto another path with its wordstock.

Old English truthfully underwent the same fate that Latin did: It wholly became something else--Middle English--but, it was still seen as English...not Anglo-French (although, "Anglo-Norman" was put forth to mark itself off from French in France, since Anglo-Norman was quickly being thought of as too hoary and folksy shortly after 1066 AD--maybe owing to English? By the middle of the 1100's, Norman-French had lost its "cleanliness". This is upheld by the many tales of English Knights who sent their kids to France to learn French.), Latin-Saxon, or Frenglish. The truth is that English hung on as the folks-tongue for the whole Norman kingship, and even those in the highest standing, in time, had taken English as a mother-tongue.

Yes, to say the working folks of middle standing were "ashamed" did yield a muddled meaning. The Normans were said to be cold toward English, which is worse. There is no bickering about whether or not English was thought of as uncouth (i.e. boorish) and unworthy of the middle and higher ranks. Ænglisc did fall away as the tongue of the high-born, higher learning, Statecraft, and business (more or less) being taken over by, what else, Norman-French. The church is not to be left out, since only Latin and French were spoken at this time.

When the tokens of truth are thoughtfully looked over, it can be understood that the Norman take-over itself had left little to no mark on the English tongue. The guilt lies with the church and the high-brow thinkers. Now, the University of Paris comes into the frame, which was built in the 1100's. Later on, the "Renaissance Thinkers" shoulder the rest of the guilt. To highlight this even more, it was, at one time, needful that Oxford eggheads learned either Latin or French. Latin was the speech of learning and holiness, and French was the speech of "Well-to-do".

I hope everyone can understand!

Ængelfolc Mar-21-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Very nice Ængelfolc, you show very well that even today's germanicness in english is enough to get the meaning of more or less everthing across with little if an new anglish words being coined. Though my only trouble with doing away with all those foreign words without coming up with new words in their stead is that what you're left with is an english wordstock that is heftily less than it is with all those foreign words. It is for these grounds that though I am fully at one with wielding germanic english whenever you can, I do very much hold dear the idea of shaping new anglish words to keep up the broadness of the english wordstock even without its foreing words.

JM1 Mar-21-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Ængelfolc: very good and shows just what can be done. There are great linguistic resources within so-called "phrasal verbs" such as "crowed out" as used. My only comment is some words like "unbridled" are now rare outside set collocations - "unbridled enthusiasm" - but good to revive them. We'll award you an 'A' for this piece.
I was hoping you would allow "unruly" instead of "disruptive" as we need a word like this in order to tell students off for bad behavior, and I hate the PC term "inappropriate behavior". Damn must catch a bus now.

jayles Mar-21-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Thanks for your thoughts wlyan138 and jayles. They are well taken.

@wlyan138: You are right. New words do need to be made for those that are taken out of the word-stock. I think that, at least at first, English speakers should again learn the words they have forgotten, like "wont" and as jayles wrote, "bridled". These words are still in the tongue waiting to be born again. Indeed, I am for speaking, reading, and writing mainly English, but also, some of the borrowed words rightfully belong. And, yes, my writing does show that English is still Germanic!

@jayles: An 'A' is good. As for "disruptive" or "unruly", methinks I know not what you mean by that. Both are Latin words. Although, I like "unruly" ("rule") much better than either "disruptive" or "inappropriate behavior". Here are a few Germanic words that are good to know for bad children:

* bad
* bawdy (French-gilded Germanic word from Frankish 'bald', which is from P.Gmc.
* balthaz, meaning "bold, swift, daring, fearless")
* hardheaded
* headstrong
* heedless
* loath, loathesome
* mean
* naughty
* on-a-tear
* reckless
* rollicking
* rowdy
* stubborn
* unyielding
* wayward
* wild
* willful
And so on, and so forth. There are a lot of words to talk about bad kids!

One would say "wield" in English when one means "rule; to excercise power and influence effectively; to use a tool or weapon with skill and control".

It is indeed old, but it is there. It has the same root as the Germanic name "Walter, Walther": both from P.Gmc. *wal-t- (to rule). "Walther" (walt + hari, heer) truly means "ruler of the army".

Sadly, Replaced O.E. wealdan (wield) was taken out and "L. rule" (from O.Fr. riule, from V.L. *regula, from L. regula) was put in its stead. I would earnestly think about keeping it in English, since it comes from the PIE base *reg- ("to rule, to lead straight, to put right") like the following Germanic words:

* Gothic 'reiks (a leader), raihts (correct)'
* Old English ' right (correct, froward of left), -rice (kingdom), -ric (king, rich, powerful)
* Old High German 'recht' (right, correct, froward of left)
* Old Swedish 'reht' (mod. Swed. "rätt") meaning 'right'
* Old Norse 'rettr' (mod. Norwegian "rett") meaning 'right'

Other sister words that share the same PIE *reg- and meanings are:

1. Latin regere (to rule), rex (king, leader), rectus (right, correct)
2. Gaulish -rix (king)
3. Old Irish ri (king)
4. Gaelic righ (king)
5. Persian rahst (right, correct)
6. Sanskrit raj (king, leader)

Ya, I think "rule" is cool. I'd keep it.

French-gilded Germanic word of the day: see "bawdy" above.

Ængelfolc Mar-21-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

One more I forgot:

Mod. German 'reich (rich, wealthy, affluent) and 'Reich' (Kingdom, Realm, Empire, regnum-from biology)

Latin Regnum (inheritable power to govern)

There are so many! It is hard to keep track!

BTW: "track" is another French-gilded Germanic word. It is from M.Du. trecken (cf. M.L.G. trecken, O.H.G. trechan).

Ængelfolc Mar-21-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Ængelfolc: Fine. The upside to "disruptive" is it describes only the behavior and its consequences and is emotionally neutral, whereas "unruly" and the other anglo-saxon words tend to describe someone's personality or attitude. It is sometimes useful to teach it and discuss some examples like mobile phones ringing and so on. "Unruly" is a bit close to disobedient which is not the focus here; we are trying to focus on not breaking the flow of learning for all students present. In short we criticize the behavior not the student. There are times when a "clinical" "blank" latin word is deliberately useful.

jayles Mar-21-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

this is where a good coinage would come in handy. oversetting "disruptive" into a more english "disbreaksome" yields a nice word in my mind (rupt=break, ive=some) Granted, the "dis" is from french. english did have the "to" fore-wordling (prefix), which would give ''tobreaksome'' though using it would hinder understanding, and I don't mind keeping the already widely used and worksome "dis", and if im right the fore-wordling dis was found in gothic. A word like disbreaksome is one of those anglish coinages that id say would be pretty readily understood from its parts, and a clear enough context.

JM1 Mar-21-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

More French-Gilded Germanic words in English:

1. Choice (from O.Fr. chois (12c., Mod.Fr. choix), from verb choisir "to choose", from Frankish *kiosan, from P.Gmc. base *kaus-; cf. Gothic kausjan "to taste, test"). Related to Eng. "choose", O.E. ceosan, from P.Gmc. *keusanan.

2. Dance (from O.Fr. dancier (12c., Mod.Fr. danser) from Frankish *dansōn)

3. Rob (from O.Fr. rober, "to rob," roub "spoil, plunder", from Frankish *rōbon, from P.Gmc. *raubojanan, from *raub- "to break".

4. Fletcher ("arrow-maker", from O.Fr. flechier, from Frankish *fliugica)

5. Grape (from O.Fr. grape from Frankish *krāppa, from P.Gmc. *krappon "hook". OE equivalent was O.E. winberige "wine berry").

6. Bastard ("illegitimate child", from O.Fr. bastard. From from Franish *bāst- "marriage" (*banstuz (“bond, tie”)) + *-ard "bold, daring, fearless"; pej. ending from Frankish *hardjan)

7. Allot (from O.Fr. aloter (Mod.Fr. allotir) "to divide by lots, to divide into lots", from à "to" + loter "lot". Lot is from P.Gmc. *khlutom. cf. O.E. hlot, O.N. hlutr, Goth. hlauts)

8. Ambush (from O.Fr. embuscher, ""to lay an ambush". From em- + Frankish *busk)

9. Banish (banischen, from banniss-, extended stem of O.Fr. banir, "announce, proclaim; levy; forbid; banish, proclaim an outlaw", from Frankish *bannjan)

0. Braggart (from ON bragr, from ON *braka + *-ard "bold, daring, fearless"; pej. ending from Frankish *hardjan)

1. Cry (from O.Fr. crier, from V.L. *critare, from L. quiritare, ultimately from Frankish *krītan (“to cry, cry out, publish”))

2. Halberd (from M.Fr. hallebarde, from M.H.G. halmbarte "broad-axe with handle," from halm "handle" + barte "hatchet," from P.Gmc. *bardoz "beard.")

3. Dungeon (from O.Fr. donjon, from Frankish *dungjo (“prison, dungeon, underground cellar”), from Proto-Germanic *dungijō, *dungijōn, *dungō (“enclosed space, vault, bower, treasury”)

4. Install ( in- + Frankish *stall (“stall, position, place”), from P.Gmc. *stallaz (“place, position”)). The Latin and Germanic prefix both mean "in, into".

5. Mayhem (from Anglo-Fr. maihem (13c.), from O.Fr. mahaigne "injury", *maidijanan (“to cripple, injure”). Related to the Germanic word "mad".)

6. Race ("people of common descent", from M.Fr. razza "race, breed, lineage", from It. razza, probably from Lombardic *raiza "line of descent". Cf. OHG *reiza "line". For contrast, O.E. þeode meant both "race" and "language;" as a verb, geþeodan, it meant "to unite, to join.")

7. Seize (from O.Fr. seisir "to put in possession of, to take possession of," from L.L. sacire, from Frankish *sakjan "lay claim to", from P.Gmc. *sokjanan or P.Gmc. *satjan)

8. Vermouth (from Fr. vermouth, from Ger. Wermuth, from O.H.G. wermuota)

9. Waste (from Anglo-Fr./ O.N.Fr. waster "to spoil, ruin" and O.Fr. wast, from Frankish *wastjan (“a waste”). Could be that Latin vastō may have merged with Low Frankish *wōstin, *wōstinna (“a waste, wasteland”), from Proto-Germanic *wōstin-)

0. Band ("an organized group" also "a flat strip, something that binds", from M.Fr. bande and O.N.Fr. bende, from O.N. band, from P.Gmc. *bindan) Related to Germanic "bind" and "bend".

Germanic => O.N.Fr./ O.Fr. => Germanic (English)---these words are all Germanic. They are said in English almost the same as their root words, even though the went through O.N.Fr. first. Speak them proudly!

Ængelfolc Mar-21-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

@jayles: I get what you're saying. I don't think that Latin words are truly "emotionally neutral", though. I think it comes down to the understanding of the student. What's more, it is that the meaning is shaped by the speaker. Said angrily, "disruptive" might come across as too emotionally charged. How something is said is key here. I guess "disruptive" will always go over better than "troublemaker"at a Parent/Teacher meeting. Why not say to a rowdy student, "you are cutting in to everyone's class-time!" instead of, "you are disrupting my class!". Or, "you are keeping everyone from learning." Using the pronoun "you" is going to make it personal, thereby making it emotional. I really don't see a difference between "he was being disruptive" vs. "his behavior was unsettling". What sense does it make to "criticize the behavior not the student", when the student is the root of the unwelcome behavior? To me, they go hand in hand.

Here are some other words to think about:

* upsetting
* irksome
* trying
* troubling/ troublesome

Ængelfolc Mar-21-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

@wlyan138:

You are right about Gothic have "dis-" as a word-binder: Ex. distaíran (to tear apart) and dishaban (to seize upon).

I am not so sure that a making a loan word with English words will work well here, even given the Gothic "dis-". The Anglo-Saxon already has a word that would work in the stead of "disruptive" and even for "separate, divide" or "destroyed": sunder, as in, break asunder. "sunder" means 'to break apart or in two : separate by or as if by violence or by intervening time or space ' as a transitive verb, and "to become parted, disunited, or severed" as a intransitive verb.

Ex. "She tore my heart asunder."; "The royal family was sundered by scandal."; "East and West Berlin were sundered by a wall."

Hook on whichever ending you want and there you have it.

* sundersome "I find your behavior sundersome."
* sundering "You have shown nothing but a sundering attitude today."
* sunderful "Your actions are sunderful."
* sundered "You have been sundered from your group."
* sunderish " You have sunderish behavior."

What do you think?

Ængelfolc Mar-22-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Ængelfolc: We are not necessarily dealing with children. English is used in NATO as a command medium, in medicine, in air traffic control, and in diplomacy, and business generally, especially in multinationals. It is also a teaching medium in universties around the world for some subjects - for example in medicine and accounting the textbooks and lectures are often in English, even though the university may be in, say, Saudi Arabia. Imagine, for example, a training session for European businessmen on negotiating in English or handling employee relations in the US. Firstly they are paying customers and we do not want to upset them, even if their mobile phone goes off in mid-session. Secondly, they themselves need to be able to choose and wield English in a way that is not going to inflame a situation. "Disruptive" is a safer bet. Also, as you are aware, it is easy for non-native speakers to unwittingly bring over things from their first language; for instance, in Hungarian, negative questions tend to make things more polite, whereas in English just the opposite applies, unless one is very careful with the intonation, which is often beyond them. Avoiding 'you' where possible is a good move, As you know, it is easy for German speakers to fall into using "You have to" (Sie muessen - polite), whereas it is generally safer to use "We need to...". Similarly having "disruptive" in your bag of tricks may help to smooth things over, as the situation often requires. "I love you very much honey, but your farting is disruptive"

jayles Mar-22-2011

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Ængelfolc: Yes OE did have toshed, todo, tofare, tolie, sunder and others for seperate. You have todeal which meant divide along with tweem and many others. And don't even get me started on how many words OE had for destroy, they seem endless. OE very often shows itself to not only be just as broad as now-time english in its wordstock, but it often outgoes it, disproving the myth that OE was a far inferior language greatly bettered by its borrowings.

I like the how-abouts that you gave, the root sunder works well for disruptive, though seeing as how sunder also means to seperate it might be called for to use something like disbreaksome. The can-bes are endless though.

JM1 Mar-22-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

@jayles: I see. I misunderstood. I thought we were talking only about students. Anyway, English would work great in any of the work settings you wrote about. The working World is full of Latin words owing only to how folks were taught. They are at home with these words, so they are spoken for, and at, work.

Yes, we German speakers do say "Sie" in business or if we don't know someone too well. It is more truthful and open to be that way.

"You must do this now." or "We must do this now." Which is better? Well, that hangs on whether one wants to (obfuscate) the meaning or not. When one's boss (likely from Frankish *botija, but not yet borne out) says, "We", he isn't trying to speak French. He/she means "you" or "us, without me", "all of you". That is never good. Folks understand that they are the ones having to do the work. So, why not say so? English makes it hard to hide the truth. If everyone were more open and frank, more true understanding could take place. The World would be a much better place. You and I acknowledge that any word meaning is heavily marked by how something is said.

One should be able to be open and truthful with one's husband or wife:

"I love you very much honey, but your farting is: unsettling/upsetting/irksome/tiresome/trying/wearisome/wearying/bothersome/maddening/nettlesome/nettling/off-putting/sickening/a turn-off/foul/gruesome/icky/rotten/stinky/awful/bad/grim/wretched/dreadful/godawful/ghastly/raunchy (from Frankish *hring)/boorish/piggish/shameful/dirty/unbecoming" And so on and so forth. There shouldn't be a need for shades of gray here. ;-)

As for business dealings, one should learn the folkways of one's customers. Handle them with kindness, understanding, and in an open, truthful way. There is never a need to put on a "dog and pony show", if one always takes the higher, truthful, path.

Just my 2 cents. Have a good day!

Ængelfolc Mar-22-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Disrupt has qute a specific meaning, of causing a break in the happening or doing of something. In many cases using upset or unsettle or any of Ængelfolc's other examples wouldn't capture the whole meaning of disrupt. Disrupt kind of has the meaning of habitually interrupting. Any way i'm just saying that try as you might very often there is no clear germanic instead-word for disrupt that has the same subtely it does.

Take the word interrupt, related to disrupt. I would never go up to two people having a speak-about, and say "sorry to upset you," or "sorry to unsettle you'', no I would say "sorry to interrupt", because interrupt has the meaning of causing a break in something that is happening, here the talking of the two people. This is why i feel in these cases, we are forced to be creative, and come up with germanic english insteaders for these words that can be readily uderstood. If I went up to two people talking and said, ''Sorry to break between, but I was just wondering if.." I think that would be very understandable, and captures the meaning of interrupt perfectly. Here, between acts as a pronoun at the end of a seperable prefix verb. Or how about come between for intervene, another straight oversetting from the latin, -- "if this goes on for any longer, the military will have to come between"'-- a bit odd sounding, but very acceptable especially given what I feel is an everything-goes style of speaking among youth especially.

The subtely and specificity of many of our latin words often cannot be captured by our current germanic english wordstock. This often calls for coining new readily understood words, but often just needs a bit of stretching of english words, like break between, or come between, in which case you wouldn't really be coining a new word, just using break and between, or come and between in a slightly odd way.

JM1 Mar-22-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

So quite clearly Harold Godwin just got his just comeuppance for being less than "Frank"; had he been a little more open, frank and truthful, ..well who knows?

jayles Mar-22-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

"Sorry to break in" is a common enough way of interrupting; in fact break in is in the dictionary as meaning interrupt. You can also use "butt in". We can make nouns like:
"Butting-in will not be tolerated". "Break-in" usually refers to burglary, as in "There was a break-in last night", so "breaking-in" may lead to confusion if the context is not clear.
"Inbutting" as an adjective is unusable at present.
I did teach "disruptive" today and so was able to utter those magic words to a student:
"I love you very much but your behavior is disruptive" and we both laughed.
But of course it is not a cure-all for unruly behavior

jayles Mar-23-2011

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Saying inbutting is unusable is innacurate. It's not so much unusable as it is incommon, but I'll bet you that somewhere in the world some native english speaker spontaneously used inbutting. After all, it does follow one of english's adjective formation rules (think oncoming). With words like inbutting, the usability of them really just hangs on the speaker's willingness to accept new words, and to shape words following english's word formation rules, instead of speaking by an if-it's-not-in-the-dict.-it's-not-a-word philosophy. "Jim, you're always butting in line, you're so inbutting." That to me is a fantastic wordstring.
In what sense then is inbutting not as word if for one it is wholly understandable and for two it follows word formation rules. saying it is unusable is just an example of how we've come to think of our language as being owned and wielded by some outside force ("those who make the dictionary"), instead of laying claim to our langauge and owning it ourselves. I would liken words like inbutting and downgoing and onsitting, and so on, to adjectives made using ''y." Virtually any noun can take a y to become an adj: boxy, computery, grassy, doory: these words are for sure used but of course not all can be put in a dictionary because of the sheer manyness of them. In the same way any sep. verb in the form of verb+prep can be forshaped into prep.verb.ing to make an adj. You will not find these adj in the dict because that would be impractical, and you will not hear these words everyday, because rare are the situations that need them, but they are nonetheless words.

JM1 Mar-23-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

As for break in, my againstfeel to it lies in it also being used for burglary, which can bring about a twomeaningness (ambiguity). But also, if you're going to get rid of foreign words and then be forced to reuse english words to mean more than one thing, then you're lowering the broadness of the english wordstock. "break in" being used for two concepts is less rich than two disshed (distinct) words being used for two concepts.

JM1 Mar-23-2011

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

French-gilded Germanic word of the day:

affray(n.) L. ex- "out of" + Frankish *frithu "peace," from P.Gmc. *frithuz "peace, consideration, forbearance".

Ængelfolc Mar-23-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

"So quite clearly Harold Godwin just got his just comeuppance for being less than "Frank"; had he been a little more open, frank and truthful, ..well who knows?" LOL!

It seems Harold II (Godwinesunu) was not truly frank with William of Normandy, but neither was William the Bastard open and truthful with Harold II (Godwinesunu).

It has been brought forth, that in about 1064, Harold II sailed to Normandy. No one knows why. It is thought that Harold II swore some kind of an oath of fealty to William, and had it done, unbeknown to Harold II, over the bones of a saint to bind it.

They were both untruthful, weren't they? I think so.

Also, it goes a little deeper. It is said in Norman folklore that the Normans had been asking Edward for the English crown (upon death), since before the banishing (about 1051) of Godwin. Although, William himself said that Edward I swore (about 1052) to give him the crown. Furthermore, the Witenagemot chose Harold II as king, even though earlier, the the group was not friendly to Godwin and his kinfolk.

I still stand by what I wrote: "...always takes the higher, truthful, path..."

Cheers!

Ængelfolc Mar-23-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

wlyan138 : you are right on the money in saying that disruptive has a very specific meaing of stalling a process or in my example stopping the progress of a lesson. This is indeed the important point. As for "inbutting" I really can't teach words that are not in current use already. And there is a target list of high frequency vocabulary to concentrate on. Also "inbutting" only covers interruptions, whereas "disruptive" covers
ANY behavior that impinges on true participation in the lesson, like quietly texting away in your lap. It is a beautiful catch-all word.
"undermining" is a possibility. "disturbing" might quickly lead to the suggestion that I am disturbed, which has psychiatric connotations. The pity is that Gernman has a nice word "stoeren" which might fit the bill, but I think it is "stir" in English with a different meaning, except in the phrase "he was a stirrer" ie troublemaker.
It is a case, as you rightly acknowledge, where le mot juste happens to be a latinate word.
Ængelfolc: Without in any way trying to undermine your postion, I think we should consider the possiblity that the Normans wrote history to justify the conquest. Harold, had he won, would have put a different spin on the whole thing.
"Honey, my boss has been undermining our marriage"

jayles Mar-23-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

@jayles:

Thank you, but what you wrote is well understood, and is a given.The writings from Norway, Denmark, Normandy/France, England, and the Church, at the least, should all be likewise regarded to get somewhere near the truth of what happened. What I wrote is founded on what is known from these writings. They are all we have to go on.

A good book to read about this is: "The Norwegian invasion of England in 1066"
by Kelly DeVries (1999). It stirs up many thoughts and "what-if's" in one's mind, but the book is well grounded by books from all sides. Give it a read, you'll not be sorry.

Stir (O.E. styrian, from P.Gmc. *sturjanan). German 'stören' is from the same root, and can mean a lot of things hinged up what is being said: disturb, interrupt, annoy, bother, perturb, upset, jam a radio signal, commove, asf. It is really a great catch-all word that makes its meaning from what is being talked about.

'Stir' has many great ways it can be put to work:

* (n.) "You caused quite a stir (impression)."
* (tr.v.) "Don't stir up anything with my mother."
* (tr.v.) "That music stirs (rouses) my soul."
* (itr.v.) "...not a creature was stirring (slightly moving)..."
* (itr.v.) "Stir the soup."

'Stir' was also a slang word for "prison", whence "stir-crazy".

Another French gilding of Germanic:

Array (from L. ad- "to" + Frank. *ræd- "ready").

Ængelfolc Mar-23-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Other Germanic word that English speakers should not eschew:

* eschew (from Frankish *skiuhan "dread, avoid, shun," from P.Gmc. *skeukhwaz. 'Shy" is from the same root. Borrowed into Italian (schiavare) and Old French (eschiver)
* ease/ easy (O.Fr. aisie, likely from a Germanic or Celtic source. cf. OE ēaþe, *auþijaz (“easy, pleasing”), from *auþiz.) Conflicting forms in Romance point to an external, non-Latin origin.
* Norman (a "Northman", from O.Fr. Normanz, plural of Normand, from O.E. word for "a Norwegian"-Norðman. "Nortmanni" seems to be the source of O.Fr. Normand)
* brioche (N.Fr. broyer, from from W.Gmc. *brekan "to break".)
* carp (from O.Fr. carpe (13c.), from V.L. carpa (c.575), from a Germanic source (cf. M.Du. carpe, Du. karper, O.H.G. karpfo, Ger. Karpfen), possibly Gothic *karpa.)
* trot (from O.Fr. trot (12c.), from Frankish *trotton-variant of 'tread')
* scallop ( from O.Fr. escalope. Latin words with initial sp-, st-, sc- usually acquired an e- when borrowed by Old French; from Frankish, from P.Gmc. *skælo; cf. O.N. skalpr)
* robe (O.Fr. robe "long, loose outer garment", from Frankish *rauba, *rouba "booty, spoils, stolen clothes"; from Proto-Germanic *raubō, *raubaz, *rauban.)
* ribald (from O.Fr. ribaltfrom Old Frankish *rīben , from Proto-Germanic *wrībanan)
* egret (dim. from Low Frankish *haigro (“heron”))
* furbish (from O.Fr. forbiss-, from Frankish *furbjan (“to clean, polish”))
* tarnish (M.Fr. ternir , from Frankish *tarnjan (“to cover up, conceal, hide”))

It would seem that the true bearing of "insular French" is shrinking by the word.

More to come...

Ængelfolc Mar-24-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Harold's death in 1066 cast a long SHADOW over England. That's why the English always carry UMBRELLAS, "lest we forget." On a wet and crowded street, dodging umbrella spokes, spare a thought for 1066, it was certainly "one in the eye" for Harold.

jayles Mar-25-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

one thing for sure should be acknowledged: english's germanic potential is greatly untapped. Midwarm-temperate, forespeak-to predict, belock-to exclude, bewit-to observe, findle-discovery, overtell-to convince, overfight-to defeat, nether-to degrade, numbercraft-mathematics, godlore-theology, forestep-to precede, presence- atbe, athold- to retain, miscare- to neglect, misturn- to pervert, missight-illusion undershove-to suppress, underbear- to support, underwreathe-to support, lifelore-biology.

There are so many potential germanic words that make perfect sense, I am often overgrasped at them not being part of everyday-speech. So much unused potential
I don't see how anyone who underholds foreign words could be against these germanic words, since if anything they would greatly add to the broadness and sundriness of English. So often they make so much more sense than their foreing evenwords (equivalents) that you feel they absolutely should be part of the language

JM1 Mar-26-2011

2 votes   Permalink   Report Abuse

@jayles: How clever! Good show! Too bad we will most likely never know the whole truth of Harold II's death. It is understood that Harold II died at Senlac Hill. Who knows for sure. The "arrow in the eye" seems highly unlikely, though. Take a look at the Bayeux tapestry. The tapestry goes against much of the eye-witness tales of Harold II's death. Very thought-stirring!

Cheers!

Ængelfolc Mar-27-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Check out this good book: King Harold II and the Bayeux Tapestry
by Gale R. Owen-Crocker.

Ængelfolc Mar-27-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

I always thought the Bayeux Tapestry depicted the UEFA cup finals in 1066, with the English football hooligans singing "you'll never walk alone" upon the terraces, and horseback riders trying to control the scimmage. Harold likely just poked himself in the eye with his own umbrella. Final score: Normandy:1, England: nil.
But maybe I'm just dreaming.

jayles Mar-27-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

@wlyan138: There are already words for many of the things you've mentioned:

Modern English Ænglisc (Old English)
- mathematics * rīmcræft
- illusion * gedwimor (Mod.Eng. "dwimmer")
- to retain * aethabban, forhabban
- discovery * gemetednes
- temperate * gneð(e)n
- to observe (watch) * bewarenian, beweardian
- to exclude (shut out) * atynan
- to predict * foresæcgan, bodian, forwitegian, forecwæðan...

These are just a few of the "word-for-word" examples. Verbs are stickier, since there is not normally a catch-all. Germanic is very specific in its meanings.

Why not use English already in use ('verbal phrases', asf)? Some examples:

to exclude = leave out
to retain = keep, withhold
discovery = unearthing
temperate = mildly warm, Springlike
to observe = watch, see, behold, witness
illusion = seeming, ghost, misbelief, daydream,
to predict = forebode, forecast, foretell, forespeak, soothsay, see coming, asf.

Sadly, English has no modern English word for "mathematics". What a shame. What do you think?

Ængelfolc Mar-27-2011

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

@jayles: Silly!

"Scrimmage" is Germanic, by the way. It is misshaped 'skirmish', from Frankish *skirmjan.

I think you got the score wrong, though.

Ængelfolc Mar-27-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

I am fully aware that Old English had words for everything mentioned. It is my thinking that Old English with which i am very familiar, often shows itself to be far richer than modern english.
I am also fully at one with using germanic english already in use whenever mightly. However I also uphold tapping in to the slumberfast germanic potential of english, which to me is twofold: bringing back OE words, especially the ones that can be readily understood more or less, and coming up with new words from english roots.
Forwhy after all, I am all for broadness and sundriness in english-- i would like to see foreign words go, but ideally i would like to see english's wordstock stay just as big which would call for bringing back some or a lot of germanicness into english

JM1 Mar-27-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

you seem to know quite a bit of OE yourself. Why not help further the Old English Wordbook on the anglish moot? I've been working on it for quite some time now, and it's looking pretty good.

JM1 Mar-27-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

@wlyan138: Thanks for your feedback. How do I go about helping make the Anglish Moot Old English Wordbook? What kind of help do they need over at Anglish Moot?

I would like nothing more than to bring back some of the Ænglisc words (like woruldwīsdōm (education), uþwitegung (philosophy), rīmcræft (mathematics), bōccræft (literature), tungolcræft (astronomy), asf.), at least, for the English-speaking landfolk (native) in the land (country) itself. For business (which is more and more globalize), we'd still have to know English glob-speak (with all the Latinate, Greek, and other foreign influences). Sad, but true.We'd have to be twīspræcisc (bi-lingual).

English has never lost its "Germanicness", it has only been overgrown with outlandish words and academic swindling. This overgrowth can, however, be trimmed away.

My goal is to have English spoken, at all times, with words already in the wordbook. Those words are being thoughtlessly overlooked only to have an outlandish-word put in its stead.

Ængelfolc Mar-27-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

http://anglish.wikia.com/wiki/Headside

scroll down to the bottom of the page where all the wordbooks are listed. The Old English wordbook is where OE words that didn't make it into now-time english are "updated" if you will. The idea is that we apply to OE words the sound-changes that english went through to becomes today's english, showing what these words would look like today. The forthstep (process) is not exact but we can have a pretty good idea of what these words would look like for the most part.

JM1 Mar-27-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Why is an updated OE word more acceptable than a latinate one? Both are the tongue of immigrants, incomers, overcomers, latecomers, settlers from overseas. The true tongue of Britain is of course Celtic, Welsh or Gaelic. Not quite the Urheimat of the Celts, but the birthright tongue of Britain nevertheless, and extant in Britain thousands of years before Anglo Saxon. Welsh is a living language taught at schools, spoken and used in Wales. Gaelic still has about 60000 native speakers. More than Anglish!. Arthur died at Badon hill defending the Celtic heritage. Boudicca fought off the Romans........ and so forth.... the propaganda of "history"

jayles Mar-28-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Dude there are many reasons for anglish, if you haven't understood them by now then whatever speak and write mongrel english. Look as we anglishers have said time and time again, it is most often the case that germanic english, and this also means resurrected OE words, is more in keeping with the core of english, its words are more descriptive because their roots, their morphology is easily recognizable. This adds to to the life of words, it also gives us a functional morphology for god's sake--when we can recognize roots being mixed and put together in different ways, we see where words get their meaning from, the roots come alive and we can then use them (they become funtional) to create even more words. We can't do this with french or latin or greek roots because we dont fucking know what they mean, it's like speaking in code. You see, when words are made up of native germnaic english roots they bring an image to mind, they are not just many-syllabled words that act as raw symbols with no recognizable inner structure. Look it comes down to a matter of aesthetics, in a way there is no logic to the anglish argument-- it's this: I feel that anglish is more beautiful because it is more descriptive and works as a whole, there is a oneness to the language, an integrity because all it's parts are clear to me and I have the ability to use them all, because I know them all. So actually it does go beyond beauty--their is the argument of understandability, and clearness.

Another argument is the beauty of purity. I know it sounds lame and stupid, but really it means something. Why do you think icelanders make sure no foreign words creep into their language--because that would ruin the purity of it, the wholeness of it, it would lose part of itself, its identity would be marred. Language provides identity, an identiy that goes beyond blood, it really is a huge part of it for many people. But if your language is made up of many other languages, what shall your identity be, to whom shall you pledge allegiance-to the english, to the french, the latin, the greek? And the thing with embracing all parts is this- you are forced to divide up your love, so that you experiece only a bit of love for each part. But if you have a pure tongue, then all your love goes to that one and only part of it, it becomes the exlusive receiver of your love. Believe me exclusivity is huge in the human psyche. which is why we form pair-bonds, and are for the most part monogamous.

the thing with mongrel english is that I cannot fully feel the power of it's germanicness, because it is not fully germanic. I can also not fully feel the power of its frenchness, because it is not fully french. And so on and so forth with the latin and greek parts. So i am left with feeling to a limited degree the power of all its parts, instead of feeling the full power of one, pure part.

I mean if we are to have no problem with mongrelness in languages, then why all the fuss about protecting languages against globalization. hell screw protecting them, if english words creep into their languages, all the better, what's so bad about mongrelness right, isn't it diversity? well it's not diversity- mongrelness destroys the uniqueness of the parts which come together to make the mongrel-- 2 or more things being turned into only one thing. This is the deception of this misnamed diversity. In order for linguistic diversity to be kept up, languages must remain pure, not only english, but all languages.

JM1 Mar-28-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

@jayles: More (agent provocateuring)?

I think you are right about one thing: The propaganda of "history". You brought up a few: King Arthur (Historical misgivings, not yet borne out), King Arthur at The Battle of Mons Badonicus (unsettled that Arthur was there, but not likely). Both of these are wielded often by Celtic newspeak firebrands, even when the truth is rather clouded and murky.

In Tacitus' Agricola (xv), it is put forth that the Iceni were heartened by the Cherusci's uprising against the Romans in Germany: "Sic Germanias excussisse iugum: et flumine, non Oceano defendi." They thought, "if the Germans can do it, why can't we?" The Germans unwittingly helped the Iceni in a roundabout way. Germanic propaganda? Maybe.

Maybe Boudicca was trying to make up for Antedios (King of the Iceni, 25-47 A.D.) selfishness. Antedios forsook the Iceni time and again for Roman gifts and backing. Antedios chose not to stand against Claudius' takeover in 43 A.D., and did not back the Iceni uprising in 47 A.D. (the year in which he was murdered for his falsehoods). More newspeak?

It does not seem anyone is saying that an "Anglish Wordbook" is, or should be, more welcome than a mixed English one. The froward seems to be true. Those who speak up for England's (or anyone's) Germanic background seem to always be beset with hateful mockery (Old Saxon *mokkian, *mukkian) and scorn (P.Gmc. *skarnjan). At the same time, these same foes of English "Germanic-ness" always try to fasten the lowest kind of shame to the thought of it, as well as, its upholders and friends. It is wrong-headed to eschew the truth of England's Teutonic side, as it is to do the same to England's Celtic side.The truth, as is oft said, is somewhere in-between.

When speaking about "Britain", I take it that you mean Romano-Britain. After all, the Romans stormed into Brittania in 43 A.D., and did not leave until they had to leave (the Roman Empire was crumbling). 43 A.D. is widely thought to be the beginning of British history. Or, are you talking about the folks before the Romans came (Old Stone Age of Britain to 43 A.D.)? The earliest writings about Britain come from the Pytheas in 325 B.C., called the folks he saw 'Prettanoi' (Prettani, whence Brittania).

Stephen Oppenheimer, in his book 'The Origins of the British', puts forth the belief that folks in Britain, before the Germanics came, did not evenly speak Celtic tongues, and that there may have been British folks who spoke Germanic tongues even before the Romans came.

I put forth that speech is the carrier of a folks way of life. You say Celtic is the "birthright tongue of Britain". If this is true, does that not deem that everyone in "Britain" is of a Celtic folkway instead of a Germanic folkway? The truth would look to be something else. Things don't seem to be so straightforward.

What must be rightly asked is what tongue is the birthright of the Germanic English, not the Romano-British folks? That is what has been, and is being talked about here. In rightly the same way that the backers of Celtic (Goidelic and Brythonic) hedge against "linguistic corruption and extinction", so too do the backers of Germanic English have that same right.

I cannot understand why there is, or would be any, strong, angry stand against keeping (or trying to keep) English as Germanic as can be.

Ængelfolc Mar-29-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

wlyan138: German or Dutch are both much purer than English, and have some good literature etc, Oder hast Du keine Lust dazu? (Or hast thou no Lust thereto?)

Sometimes the virtues of English word roots can be overstated. For example, the meaning of phrasal verbs such as "give up" or "put up with" is not easily deduced from their constituent parts, but rather inferred from the context. Other examples might include "undergo" "forego". Equally even if one understands the Latin roots, the meaning of "succeed" is not easily deduced. It's sometimes the same in German. "Unfall", (unfall) does not obviously mean "accident". So people learn the meaning from context, and the roots may be just a side issue, or even a red herring.

Ængelfolc: Provocateur? Moi? Honi soit qui mal y pense! But such stirring replies!
Seriously though, I deal with people from countries all over the world. The most striking thing is that despite all their differences Europeans have more in common with each other than with, say, Vietnamese, Koreans, Thai, etc. So it doesn't make a lot of sense to say this is Germanic, and that is Greek, when in fact they are both European, and sometimes muddled together. The EU is there for a reason.
Let us take Hungary as an example. Romans, Avars, Arpad and co, Genghis, Schwabisch, Ottomans, Slavs, Soviets, you name it they've been there, and affected the language, and the people. All we can say is they are European and today's Hungarian is European. English is much the same, just a "mongrel' language, but no worse for that. Yes those Latinate words can sound snooty, but we can avoid them in daily speech. I think you already agree with my general drift here. Ciao!

jayles Mar-29-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

jayles: it was from me learning german that i first got stirred in me the thought of a purer, more germanic english. And i do not pretend that germanic words do not need context for their meanings to be drawn out--all words in the end need context or else no one would ever learn any word and humans would be without langauge. It is of course a matter of degree-- how much context?, is the word just a raw symbol or is it made up of recognizable parts, like unfall, a much more powerful and stirring word than the word accident which again is only a raw symbol for what it tokens. True, context is still needed for children or language learners to learn the meaning of unfall, but at least there is some kind of clue to it, as well as an image-stirring, almost metaphorical suchness(quality) to it, which is fully untheresome (absent) in accident.

And to say well all europeans are alike so that means doing away with language purity is alright is pretty untodowith--we are talking about languages not racial or cultural groups. Different languages of similar cultures are still different languages, and they should stay that way (and therefore stay pure and unmixed) so that language-diversity might be upheld. if all the world were to adopt one culture would it then be okay for all languages to mix, thus hurting language-diversity?

And in any case the cultures of europe do differ enough such that each land-folk has their own selfhood. The germanics are different from the mediteraneans are different from the eastern europeans.

JM1 Mar-30-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Reckon not much setting needed for anyone to get the word: 'everbear'

Even though it looks like its been around forever, I have never heard or thought of it before...I think (?)

Anyway, don't know if it comes under Anglish but nonetheless it strengthens the Englishness of English.

///11. Special Combinations: ever-bearer, a plant which bears flowers and fruits (sometimes simultaneously) for a long time; hence ever-bearing adj.; ever-being a., that always is; hence everbeingness; everbleving vbl. n. [f. bleve, BELEAVE v.], everlastingness; ever-bloomer = ever-bearer (orig. applied to a rose); hence ever-blooming adj.; everbrown n., a plant always brown (humorously after evergreen)///

Stanmund Mar-30-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

@jayles:

"...it doesn't make a lot of sense to say this is Germanic, and that is Greek, when in fact they are both European, and sometimes muddled together. The EU is there for a reason."

This is away from English, but on what true ground is the E.U. built? Is "sameness" a smart, worthy goal? The E.U. is trying to be a "United States of Europe", but can it ever really be that? Is wresting away folks right to be who they are an upright thing to do? Wherefore came the E.U. into being? Has it rightly grown beyond that? Are the folks really better off? Do the Germans, Danes, Brits, Swiss, Czech, Poles, Dutch, French, asf, need a "parent government"? Read the "Lisbon Treaty", or look it up. If one hasn't read it, it will be an eye-opener. Guaranteed (Frankish *warand)!

Germans and Greeks are folks live on the bit of Earth that is better marked as the Headland of Eurasia. The British Isles are not thought of as Europe (politics aside). Who says, "I'm European." What does that mean other than "I was born and live somewhere on the headland called Europe"? Loosely, Germans, Spaniards, Greeks, Italians, French, asf, have a slender link to each other, but so what of it? All of these folks made their own ways of speaking, doing,and being. Overall, they are NOT the same folks.

This mixed-bag of lands and folks, on the whole, is what is so lovely about the World, whether we talk about today or yesterday. And, yes, they do sometimes mix together, but again, so what? That doesn't make for a "European" way of life, anymore than the U.S. and Canada share a "North American" way of life. It must be said that the U.S. and Canada do have many things that are alike, but there are also those things which make the two truly unalike.

"Sameness", within this framework of understanding, it seems to me, crushes the heart of what it is to truly be a human being. Danke, ich verzichte.

Now back to Ænglisc...

Ængelfolc Apr-02-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Ængelfolc: It is a matter of Weltanschauung*. Students from South America, from Russia east of the Urals I think of as having "European" culture, educational background, and attitudes, when compared to say, Arabic-speakers, or students from SE Asia, where their background, educational experiences, and culture may be quite different. Of coure I am aware that this is an overgeneralisation, but forewarned is forearmed for what problems may crop up in working together.
For instance I once asked a Japanese student how people complained in Japan. "You don't", (And apropos of nothing I once asked a Japanese diplomat why they attacked Pearl Harbor.....I expected "No comment" but....really shouldn't have embarrased him)
As for the EU, well one would hope its raison d'etre would be to foster working together instead of starting great wars.... but it really was just a throwaway remark. (Frankish!)
But your soapbox is nice.
Which brings us to weltanschauung, abseil, angst, anschluss, autobahn, automat, sauerkraut, schadenfreude, schmalz, schmuck, schwa, shyster, spiel, shtum, and so on. These are all listed in English dictionaries. Are we to throw them out because they are foreign? Or accept them as English simply because they are germanic? Be careful with schmuck, it might be slav. The point in my view is whatever, they are European, that's good enough.

jayles Apr-03-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Oh and I once vary unwisely asked a guy from the "Middle East" what his wife's name was...

jayles Apr-03-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

jayles: we should keep foreign words that are one-syllabled, meaning they have no inner framework. However shadenfreude is a word that stands for a pretty abstract thought and so it makes perfect sense to englishen it into the endlessly more understandable hurt-joy, hurt-gladness or something of the kind. It's not so much about germanicness as it is about wholeness and clearness.It would be just as bad for english to be a mongrel of english and german as it is for english to be a mongrel of english and french. Shadenfreude is a terrible english word for the simple reason that it is not english--it is flat-out foreign, made up of two bits which are foreign. God even the spelling gives it away-foreign! WTF shaden is not english neither is freude so why the hell is shadenfreude deemed a word. And weltanshauung? I'm sorry but that has to be one of the stupidest words ever to make it into the wordbook. Clearly worldoutlook is endlessly better because it says what it means. Clearness, understandableness, and wholeness over mongrelness. same goes for abseil (offrope or rope off). I rest my case

JM1 Apr-03-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

@jayles: Thank you for shedding light on what you meant. I better understand. Good show acknowledging "remark" as Frankish. I think it belongs to English. It is a Germanic word with a little Latin feel.

Now, I would not call those folks you brought up as having "European culture". Rather, I say they'd have a Western upbringing as set against an Arab or Asian background. There has always been a sharp split between the Eastern and the Western halves of the World. What is "European culture"? No one can say well what that means. Saying "Western culture", however, takes in all of the many folkways on the Eurasian headland, as well as, the lands further West beyond the British Isles (Iceland, Greenland, Canada, and the U.S.). Indeed, South America and it's folkways are something altogether unlike what one thinks of as "Western culture". As I said, it's not so straightforward and open to one's World outlook (as you said).

"Foot in mouth" is all I could think of when I read your brush with the Japanese fellow. You made it out okay, though, right?! You forgot to speak Roman-English, huh? LOL

Your "soapbox" remark (Frankish) seems like back-handed flattery (Frankish *flat). It was not meant to come across as big-headed or in an overbearing kind of way. I am sure that the Salmon feels the flow of the river water is overbearing when it swims upstream, too. It is hard to think politically "upstream". I was only wanting to stir up some thoughts...to have the mind opened. If I have done that for one reader of this blog, I am happy and hopeful.

Your E.U. remark didn't come across as "throwaway". It seemed to be written in such a way as to back your thought ( and oddly, the E.U.'s) about doing away with the "cultural identity" of the folks living in the Eurasian headland.

As for throwing out all of the German words, I say no. As I have written earlier, I am for keeping any and all Germanic words, as well as, some Latin and French (and maybe Greek). I am against over-borrowing and the seemingly willful watering down of Germanic English.

You are right about "schmuck". In German, der Schmuck ('jewelry', 'decoration') and schmuck (adj. 'dapper', 'neat') are likely not where the Eastern Yiddish word "schmok" came from. The Old Polish word "smok" ('dragon') is much more likely given its earliest spelling and Yiddish meaning. Although, weirder things have been shown to be true!

"...whatever..." seems scornful and unacknowledging to me. I do give you, though, that those folks all do live in what is marked as Europe. As for it being "good enough", well, that's for another time...

Thanks for your thoughts, jayles! Machs gut!

Ængelfolc Apr-04-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Ængelfolc: Well I must say this column is quite entertaining; I haven't had such linguistic fun since I left skool; thank you. "Soapbox" was in fact forehanded flattery,
'"Foot in mouth": -- not at all : in fact very deliberate training in answering awkward questions diplomatically.
"Western" and "Eastern" and "Middle East" don't make much sense if you live in Hong Kong, as the middle east is in the far west and so forth. They are eurocentric terms.
Not trying "to do away with cultural identity" just wouldn't want the Balkan/ Bosnia/Sarajevo situation to trigger another "Great War" .

So German words are acceptable but 'unakzeptabel" is not, Oder?

Tsch

jayles Apr-04-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

@wlyan138:

Die Schadenfreude is not foreign in the same way that Romance, Asian, Arabic, and Greek words are. Yes, the word is from German, but German is kin to English. German and English are "sisters". The both come from Proto-German and are of the West Germanic bough. English truthfully is a blend of many Germanic tongues: Old Saxon, Old Frankish, Old Norse (Danish), Old Dutch, Anglo-Frisian, asf. It is all guess-work, but in all likelihood, nonetheless true. I mean know one knows all of the Germanic folks that sooner or later became the "Anglo-Saxons". Indeed, you know that.

To show kinship:

Schaden (from P.Gmc. *skath-) = Scathe (v.) which in English, came from O.N. skaða. "Scathe" said in German is either 'die Beleidigung' or 'der Schaden'.

Freude (from P.Gmc. *frawa-) = In English "frith" (friþu, friþ) and "frolic" (cf. Ger. fröhlich).

Now, yes, English would need to put English words in the stead of the German ones :

Schaden => scathe, hurt, harm, Freude => mirth, glee, gladness, happiness

So, "scathe-frith" is the English word. Why not just say "sadistic", "gloat(ing), or the English "Roman Holiday"? Friedrich Nietzsche thought up this idea in 1895, and it shortly made it into most tongues. The word is understood by its bits in Germany, but only if it is learned in English. So what? It seems to be a rightful borrowing that was gladly taken into English. For me, it is in the same group of borrowings as 'sushi', 'sauerkraut', 'street', 'pistol', asf. The thought (or folkway) arose outside of English. In this way, to me, it belongs in English.

My 2 Marks. ;-) Cheers!

Ængelfolc Apr-04-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

@jayles:

"So German words are acceptable but 'unakzeptabel" is not, Oder?" Nein, auf keinen Fall! http://www.vds-ev.de/

Other better words to say: (nicht oder un) annehmbar or untragbar. German does not need the Latin-French word at all. It is a great show of uncalled for wanton borrowing.

The word "Western" is not always understood to mean direction. The Western World is considered to be lands where Indo-European tongues are spoken and European folkways are mainly undertaken. The West (or Western World) is well-known as the well-spring of technology and modernity. The folks in Hong Kong (and most everywhere else) know and understand this, too.

The break-up of South Slavia was a many sided thing. Government owned a big share of the blame. So, the way I see it, it's not likely that "Big Brother" of any kind, is the answer.

Asking a Japanese diplomat why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor was diplomatic training??

Gruß...

Ængelfolc Apr-04-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Ængelfolc:
Yes I know german is kin to english, and really we are one on this thought here. The german bits must be set out over into english. If schaden and freude are not found on their own then putting them together makes no sense, so we would have to englishen shadenfreude inot something like scathe-frith. now scathefrith is an awesome word, but more understandable ones to today's speakers would be hurt-gladness, hurt-glee. Scathe is used today as a do-word, so that could work as a thing-word i guess, but frith is not widely known. I am of course all for bringing OE words back, but for a right-now word for shadenfreude, something like hurt-gladness would be better understood. but the choices clearly are broad.

JM1 Apr-04-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

to be in a state of sheer coldblooded 'scathefrithshire'

scathefrithful happenstance left many a gleen and gladden mind and heart

twas my foes dreadful comeuppance that hast maketh my smile the happiest in the church of scathefrith

or something like: 'badmindedhappiness' or 'spitehappy' (slaphappy)

Stanmund Apr-04-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Guys: surely glee or gloating is good enough in the right context.
Ængelfolc: can't practise sidestepping awkward questions without asking awkward questions,

jayles Apr-04-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Ængelfolc: besides featuring in the Milosevich, Karadich, Mladic, UN "safe-haven" saga, Sarajevo was also where the European war of 1914 started. It would be nice to think that the EU would forestall another one.

jayles Apr-04-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

I think that GLEE and GLOAT(ing) are great.

glee (M.E. glien, gleen, O.E. gléo, glēo and cognate to O.Norse glȳ, gljā, from a P.Gmc. *gliuujan. The word is not found in other Germanic tongues.

gloat (from O.N. glotta. Cf. MHG & German Glotzen)

"Schadenfreude" is a Nietzschean word that was rightly borrowed, since it is a thought that was shaped outside of English. Think about "church", "priest" and so forth. Christian terms (which are mostly, if not all Latin) belong in English don't they?

My 2 Marks...again.

Ængelfolc Apr-05-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

One more thing:

When a loan-word is borrowed into English, if it can be Anglified word for word, it is:

Will to Power (an Nietzschean word in German is der Wille zur Macht).

World War (from German "Weltkrieg")

Loanword (from German "Lehnwort")

Power Politics (from German "Machtpolitik")

Super Ego (from German "über-Ich")

Rain Forest (from German "Regenwald")

Homesickness (from German "Heimweh")

The list could go on forever. But, it cannot be always done word for word to get the best meaning:

Übermensch (another Nietzschean thought, is fought about in English. Some like "Overman" and some like "Superman". And, there is even "Beyond Human". Funnily, "super" is not even English...it's Latin.)

The thing is, "über" is a word with many meanings which hangs on the framework in which it is said and how it feels and flows when it is uttered.

An extra Mark, sorry....

Ængelfolc Apr-05-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

I meant to write, "Whether a loanword (lehnwort) is Anglified, or not, has to do with how it feels and flows when it is uttered in English."

Ængelfolc Apr-05-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

@jayles:

You are right--"doing" is a great teacher! LOL

Now about The Great War (and some of its roots):

* The Treaty Alliance System--'War Decl." Au.Hun -> Serbia; Russia -> Au.Hun; Germany -> Russia; France -> Germany; Britain (along with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa) -> Germany; U.S. -> Germany; Japan -> Germany; Italy -> Germany & Au.Hun. (government)

* Austro-Hungarians wanted to crush the nationalist movement so that it would gain strong sway over the Balkans, undo Serbia's sovereignty, and to uphold the two-Monarchy rule. (government)

* Black Hand murdered Archduke Franz-Ferdinand (political group interests, maybe government)

* Imperialistic Foreign Policies by all of the great European governments (government)

* Fighting about Land (government)

* Economics (government)

And so forth. It's a lovely thought that you have, but, again, highly unlikely that more centralized, sterile government means more peace, security, and prosperity for all.

Folks need, and have a right to be, and be free.

Good back and forth, jayles! Alles Gute!

Ængelfolc Apr-05-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

How about a bit of leethsong, here is my poem yeclept:

Horsefeatheriness...


We must fly, a foulfullful doing alights, feathered friends flee, fowlfull skies team, we must. Once at the peck, beck and call of fowl, tree and bush now live underlifed and birdsong no longer full, so we must. With a reck and tell of hundreds and thousands we must be fulfillful of the fowlfull sky above.


loanwayed
foulfullful
fowlfull
underlifed
reck and tell

Stanmund Apr-05-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

*we must be fulfillful of the fowlfull sky above. Fly!*

Stanmund Apr-05-2011

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Do you have a question? Submit your question here