“Anglish”

@jayles: Das ist eine ganz andere Sache. Ich denke, dass fast jeder auf diese Art und Weise 'engstirnig' ist, und richtig so. Das ist fuer Auslaender nur richtig, die Sprache und Braeuche des Gastlandes anzunehmen. (Besonders, wenn sie dauerhaften Residentstatus oder Staatsbürgerschaft erwerben wollen) ..m.M.n...

1) it's the air that holds them up there not the sky;
2) "air" is now so deeply embedded in English both as noun and verb and in collocations- airborne is itself a Fr/Eng compound - that it would be difficult to replace. Eg "airing cupboard" , "airs and graces" , aircraft, the programs was aired ,,, etc
3) how about "codebreaker", sounds much more english even if code is fr.
4) A "tonguecrafter" is someone who carves tongues,or puts studs in tongues; it's a messy business often bloody. The term is also used for the people who boil and preserve ox tongues, a tasty delicacy favord by the early Saxons.

Ah so plausible!

The question of what foreign language people should learn is interesting. Clearly for career purposes, the major languages, English, Spanish, Arabic, Mandarin are the most useful. However there is so much romance borrowing over a germanic foundation in english that few non-slav European languages are really foreign. The wordstock is so similar. French and Dutch people rarely have difficulty in writing quite english-sounding english, whereas people from Asia (excluding India) almost always write unidiomatic English in a distinctly non-European style; really foreign. Russian and other slav languages stand midway; although there are noticeable borrowings from french in particular, and the structure is latinate, most of the wordstock seems as alien as hungarian, or mandarin, and thus a great hurdle. Lastly in Russian syllable stress is variable, often changing with wordending. Once one gets beyond the textbooks where stress is marked, knowing where to put the stress becomes an ongoing nightmare. Eg okNO window; okNA of a window; OKna windows etc
However it will light up your chances with slav women!

Well if you could get past the cyrillic script you would find russian quite similar to polish; as one travels west from russia, the language slopes off into ukrainian, by Lviv it's sloping off again into polish, or further south slovak. Psza krev would be "pcov krovj" in Russian.
Much the same happens with german and surrounding tongues, and with what they speak in Barcelona (Catalan?).
This points up that the entire concept of a "pure" language is misplaced. Yes we don't want to be flooded with unnecessary borrowings, but words like "banana" and "potato" would be sensible. (Anglish: "chimpfood" "earthapples" I suppose).
As you may know in the 19th century hungarian, like most Eurolanguages borrowed the word "pianoforte" for the new instrument. However the "Hunglishers" of the day decided they wanted a "pure" hungarian word and created the current word "zongora".
Nice but IMHO unnecessarily separatist. They went on to hungarianise many words several thousand of which survive today, many calques of German eg Fallschirm (oh no that must have been later!) Anyway
"Kálmán Szily presented approx. 10,000 words in his book A magyar nyelvújítás szótára ("Dictionary of Hungarian language reform", vol. 1–2: 1902 and 1908), without aiming to be comprehensive"
I am not at all convinced it was a good idea. Just makes the language so oddball.
I see nothing wrong in Europeans sharing and borrowing words from each other where necessary esp technical words. We do in fact share a common European culture and history and ancestry.
Time for a cuppa!

@dogreed:

Thank you for asking, but I don't know why you are asking me this. Read my writings on this blog for the answers you seek. "Global-English" (being the World Lingua Franca) is a real issue for English. I'd say that is one of the greatest issues of English today. And, it goes way beyond the corruption of the tongues itself; there are socio-economic overtone's to deal with. What's more, English's "global language status" comes at the great expense of other languages, threatening other tongues survival---English included.

"Living languages" are to gain new vocabularies and ideas; there is no strife about this. To my mind, "living language" does not mean "take on as many and as much of all other languages in the World", in the misguided notion that diversity, acceptance, and cultural understanding will be achieved. These ideas are both dangerous and foolish.

Furthermore, I am not an "Anglisher", rather I am for English (Ænglisc). I am with you about "Anglish"; I have likened it to Tolkien's "Elvish".

Please expound on your question. Thanks.

@jayles ... I agree about the nuances ... at least in part. One has to wonder if those nuances are there because there was a real need for it or are the there just because of our perceptions. English was the on the lower tier below French and Latin and then still below that of Latin for many years. The "cultured", "elite", "educated", etc. learn French and Latin. I imagine that this showed off by using them even with the lower classes who, in turn, related those words to being more worthy than mere Anglo-Saxon/English words.

Is there really a nuance between despise and hate? Is hate that much stronger? Or less polite? Have we had centuries of conditioning to accept that French/Latin based words are better? Even now we're often told in the US that we should accept the "diversity" of other languages than requiring that our gov't carry out its affairs in English. Those who promote English first are labelled as haters ... Even on this thread, the mere idea of attempting to forego the use of French/Latin words brought out the label of racist.

The mere fact that English has not only survived all these trials but thrived is amazing. In one way, we should be grateful. Since English was looked down upon, nobody was trying to control it. It was allowed to change in such a manner that Anglo-Saxon lost most of its declination and gender in the process. A good thing in my eyes.

OTOH, it picked up a lot of French/Latin words, the god-awful French spelling habits and rules, and "thou", "ye", and "you" got all mangled up (mainly as the result of imposing the T-V (tu-vos/vous) rule on thou and ye).

There is a difference between, "The new hire must be able to work without oversight." and "The new hire must work without oversight." ... at least to me.

The first implies some degree of supervision but not close supervision while the second implies that there will be no supervision ... and no one (officially) to go to if you need help.

Yes, English can be wordy when it comes to politeness. I find myself, usually unnecessarily, trying to translate that wordiness. And don't feel bad Ængelfolc, Americans are often thought of as brusque because we often aren't nearly as wordy at the Brits! :P

@Stanmund ... aviation language needs to stay as is because English is the standard language of aviation by various treaties. Even in Paris when ground control talks to Air France, it is supposed to be done in English so that all the other flights will understand (BTW, this caused a lot of heartache but was finally enforced).

There are just some areas ... the military and aviation ... that new words would cause more confusion. I was in both the military and aviation and trust me when I say that those institutions would resist any large-scale change.

But for the sake of the exercise, I would say that for approach you could use "end of flight" or "endbit" ... maybe "endflight" or "flightend"; change "final" to "last".

"Your final approach vector is ..." becomes "Yur last endbit run is ..."

Adventure of English

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRtGKXN-K6Y&feature=related

Very interesting segment about American English.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365751/How-British-English-Americanisms-ARENT-taking-language-research-shows.html

Of note:

* ‘Americans tend to be much better at stressing the French origins of words such as garage and ballet.’

* '...American English remains very conservative and traditional in its speech patterns.’ (closer to the roots?!); '...in many instances it is the American speakers who are sticking to more ‘traditional’ speech patterns.'

* 'British English speakers are refusing to use American pronunciations for everyday words such as schedule, patriot and advertisement.'

ERA in Am.Eng. >> Eh-rah or Ee-rah, not ERROR

Bouquet in Am.Eng. >> is said BOTH ways listed in the article.

Neither in Am.Eng. >> is also said BOTH ways.

Glacier in Am.Eng. >> most often, Glay-Sher.

Semi >> again, BOTH ways are said.

Nuclear >> BOTH

Garage >> is close to French pronunciation, but there are many dialectical variations.

Iraq >> BOTH

Vase >> Vayze/ Vayce/ Vahz

Lasso >> Las-so ("a" as in 'at', "o" as in 'home')

Research >> Both ways are said.

FILLET is not Fil-let, but Fee-lay (as in French). As for the SCHEDULE (from Greek skhida) "Shedyul", "Skedual" debate---->>> the Brit way of saying SCHEDULE is from French, while the U.S. uses the original Greek pronunciation. The same original Greek pronunciation is used for SCHOOL (Gk. skhole) in Am.Eng., too.

Instead of L. enlarge >> M.Eng. biggen >> Big"gen\, v. t. & i. To make or become big; to enlarge. [Obs. or Dial.]--source: "biggen." Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. MICRA, Inc. 30 Jul. 2011.

EX. "We need to biggen the film."

"Jared wasn’t the only one who lived outside of the (bulwarked) walls but those who did were often (looked upon) with mistrust of not wanting to be part of the Gathering. (Brazen) (selfhood) could lead to one being shunned until one (made amends)."

1. Blatant > Brazen, Bald, Bold, Garish,

2. Individualism > Selfhood (1. The state of having a distinct identity; individuality. 2. The fully developed self; an achieved personality.) See, English doesn't need this word either!

3. Repent > make amends, square up, withdraw (withdrew > take back, unsay), forswear, asf.

"we have a good English word for "metaphor": KENNING." well not quite. Take "slam"; literally "slam the door"; but also used (esp in news headlines) to mean condemn eg "Govt report slams new training scheme for police". Hell maybe I am using metaphor wrongly anyway.??
1400 might be a good cut off date but I cannot go looking up dates to decide whether a word is okay or not. I suggest a) avoid (!) words directly imported (!) from latin (ie renaissance and after) b) admit (!) norman french words which have become embedded in English eg "use"; "point out"; and so on. Would be easier to guess. Eliminate (!) the words ending in "ate" "ation" ?? asf

"curious" does not suggest any underhand earnest whereas being snoopy or nosey really does. On the other hand one can wonder to one's heart's fullness without a smidgen of evilmindedness

Empirical Evidence >> Firsthand Betokenings?

Looked up "flattery" only to rediscover it's frankish..... so hard to remember these french-looking frankish words....

I am all for an anglish rebirth. I have been into this subject for a long time since finding out about Old English and studying it, together with Latin. I was astonished to find how much the heart of the English speech was ripped out after 1066. I read books written by William Barnes (who I recommend for all anglish readers [he was a Victorian teacher who often fought against the tide of modern Latinisation]) who made fine Anglish words and promoted their worth as a return to the soul of the language [why not 'starlore' for astronomy, or lifelore for biology, sundry for different; he made many of these simple but pretty word-swaps].

Furthermore, for the people who seem to think this is a pathetic, sad undertaking I would point them to take a look at our European neighbours. Many have academies that are becoming increasingly resistant to foreign borrowings. If they can do it why can't we? My G/F is Spanish and I am surprised and intregued by the Real Academia's ability to find Spanish (latinate) alternatives to words (many modern English words which are technological and scientific due to recently being discovered) in an attempted to keep the Spanish language 'Spanish'.

What does english do? Just blithely go with the flow until English is a mere jumbled mess with no soul? Then when English loses its Global power we will be left with a broken language.

Help enliven the speech of our forefathers and re-find our roots and be proud of our folkland once again.

@AnWulf:

I am not wholly on-board with your thought about the wordbooks; Many ESL learners have a goal at odds with the keeping of true English > business and Uni-learning.

ESL-English is a means to an end, and that makes it unalike to, as well as, a big threat to born English speakers; the English tongue is a big slice of the Anglo folkway, not only a tool. It is much akin to what is happening with the German tongue. As I have written many times here, der Träger der Kultur sei die Sprache. Watering down any tongue with wanton borrowings, waters down the folkways of a Folk. Sooner or later, they would then wane and come to naught. For byspel, we hardly know the Goths at all. Their tongue would have died out, if it weren't for Wulfilas.

As for VOTE...

Why not say lot-casting > I'm casting my lot for Rasputin. LOT (OE hlot; cf. Ger. los), CAST (ON kasta). Although CHOOSE is good, too.

POLL is Teutonic, by the way < ME pol, polle < MLG/MDu. pol, poll, pōle < PGmc. *pūlijōn, *pull- "head, top"; cf Dan. puld "hat crown", Swedish pull "head".

@jayles:

Well done! Ausgezeichnet!

@jayles: It is a struggle for us all! I like what the words you put forth for "inappropriate". As for the "English Government", I guess it could be said that England is under the foot of the U.K. :-0

My biggest problem presently is with the OED's interminable idiocy in discounting words that weren't in English by the 12th Century. If English is counted as an extant language, or living tongue, from the point of conception - then why does the OED have the audacity to discount 700 years of its vocabulary? No other language does this as far as I'm aware. Being English, I also take issue with those of my landsmen who seem to proclaim the hypocritical view of Alfred the Great as true king of the English but only consider viewing their country's characteristics and mannerisms as being of worth if hailing from post-Norman conquest England.

Oh, read something in one of the earlier comments about the fact that certain words of English originally came from Low German of Latin origin - that's no problem at all - seeing as English should only be counting words from its own beginnings, and not those borrowings from before it was conceived. Otherwise it would be as mad as a Frenchman taking umbrage with the Romans for taking Germanic words into Latin before French came into being.

Far be it from me to weigh in here but ...
1) Sieg is perhaps better known than "sigor' ... try googling it... though to be fair it has a dark side to it.
2) Who is Ed? "edquikened??" However most people would understand "re-quickened".
I think you need to use words that are still in "the dictionary" to be understood by all and sundry. Otherwise it will all be gibberish.

"English was quite small, and we are left with mysterious words like ,er, "dog"." Well, one thought about where 'dog' comes from is this:

DOG < Old English docga “strong hound breed” (it had a marked, keenly drawn, meaning, not unlike 'hound' in English today), a pet-shape of Old English -docce (“muscle”) (see fingerdocce (“finger-muscle”) with ending -ga (see frocga (“frog”), picga (“pig”)), from Proto-Germanic *dukkōn 'power, strength, muscle'. See Platt dogge "a big dog"; Dutch dog "a bull-dog"; German Deutsche/Dänische Dogge "Great Dane", die Dogge "mastiff"; Danish dogge, Swedish dogg, a mastiff.

Thanks : "heleth" can be found in wiktionary so I think it can be used.
I just bought another farewain : this time it is truly germanic - a "Folkswain" (FauVee)

What I was saying was:

Government (body of bureaucracy) in America = what the British call the State.

Government in British English = what Americans call the Administration.

That's all. One word; unalike takes on the same words meaning and brooking.

Gallitrot: I remember having the same conversation some years ago (like 2005). I argued for -ric at the time, but I remember that Bryan Parry (a great guy) won me over to rike. I *think* the key point was that the sound in -ric only came about through being on the end of a word, and rike was the standalone word. But I can't remember, and I can't find the emails or pages where the discussion took place. I'm happy to have the discussion again if there was an appropriate venue.

On the discussion about state and government and administration: there's clearly a split between the territory, the structures, the possessions, the employees of a country, let's say Canada, and the people who make up the Harper "government", that is, elected people and those whom he appointed, and who will change when a different party is elected. Regardless of what we call them in English, the first is the "rike", and the second is what we're trying to figure out, whether we call it "government" or "administration". Basically, the people who temporarily control the rike.

The bureaucracy is bumbledom: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bumbledom

@Gallitrot - bishopric/bishoprike/bishop-rike ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rike see the 1857 quote) is more of a kenning (compound) than an afterfast. The -ric hides the meaning of "rike" and looks a lot like -ic.

The -lic gives us the adjectiv -ly with a meaning of "like" ... brotherly (brotherlike).

The -lice gives us the adverbial -ly from adjectivs ... greatly.

So we alreddy hav the -ly doing twofold work. The -ic can be from French, Latin, or Greek but, natheless, it is a well-known afterfast. So edquickening -lic in a few words like mightlic doesn't seem out of place to an English speaker. ... And I think it has a better lude than mightly. But folks will hav to work it out to see which one they like better.

Sorry for the hit and run again, but I'm on limited time.

Linguists hav a sted and they hav worth, but in my findings, they make the utter worst etymologists. They can see the worm in the bark of tree but can't see the forest that they're standing in the middle of.

Any … ANY … building up of the way that we THINK that words were said before masheens were made to record such words is subjectiv gesswork. Most of it is likely right but it would be nuts to say that it's all 100% right. It should only serve as an overall guide but not as an absolute marker.

So, anent OE, first we hav that the Saxons didn't mark their vowels … Or maybe I should say that they seldom did. I haven't seen it but I haven't read many handwritten writs either. I like better to read the typ'd ones so I lean on those who made the overwritings to be right. The vowel marking is a nowadays thing to help us to read and MAYBE say the word somewhat near to how some THINK the Saxons said it. Most will admit that if a boatload of Anglo-Saxons came thru a time tunnel that even our utmost, best Anglo-Saxon scholar would hav a hard time speaking with them.

Further, The Clark Concise A-S Dict. has: -clýsan v. be-c. [clûse] [[under "clûs"]]. Well there it is … it can be ȳ or ū! The ū often, but not always, yields 'oo' in today's English. It seemingly did yield 'oo' in some of the ME spellings of close (cloos).

So we know that clȳs = clūs and that clūs is akin to Plot. kluse; Dut. kluis; Kil. kluyse; Ger. klause; M. H. Ger. klóse; klús, klúse; O. H. Ger. klúsa.

So, let's say, in arguendo, that it was an EARLY borrowing from Latin clusa/clausa. Then it would hav been big a leap for the OE clȳs- to hav been said with today's long ī. The y is said to be = to ü. Keep in mind that the OE ȳ was merely the y said a little longer (or so they say) and not a nowadays ī. Yes many, gewiss not all, of the ȳ words today is spoken with a long ī. However, that IN NO WAY means that it was said that way in OE. Soothfast, the those who teach OE will often remind one of that! So it's not a matter of a nowadays ī forshaping to a nowadays 'o' … It's how near were they back about 1100 AD. If it is right that the ȳ is only a lengthening of the y, then it wouldn't hav been that far off and even nearer with the ū in clus.

There are always exceptions: One would expect fright to come from a word with ȳ … but it comes from fyrht(an). In Clark's Concise Dict. we hav fyrhto, fyrhtu (fryht-, N) f. 'fright,' fear, dread, trembling [forht] … whoa … fyrht = forht? yep … y=o … Altho they are sunder entries, they are cross-referenc'd and hav the same meanings. Look at the -o and -u (fyrhto, fyrhtu) … it could be either one hinging on how someone said them. This happens often … searo and searu.

Now for the rest of the trees in that forest.

So we hav the nobility speaking French and spelling it clos- … the Saxon would hav likely thought they were SLIGHTLY mispronoucing clys-/clus-. The Norman-French scribes would hav written clos-. When English started being written again after the Gap (the nearly 100 years where is practically stoppt being a written tung), it began noting French spelling. Thus we see spelling all over the sted!

Now with the nobility speaking French and the Church speaking Latin, English was left to the common man. Those who could write were strongly inflow'd (influenc'd) by the French spelling way and often chose French spellings of words that were somewhat alike to the Saxon word. It's only natural that someone would want to seem "worldly" and "learn'd" by noting French words given England was wielded by the French speaking Norman descendants (and still are). We still see that today … Why should anyone note 'avant garde' when we hav the English shape of 'vanguard' … but 'avant garde' is more "worldly" and toss'd about a lot.

Since the y=ü had been droppt, then that left u, oo, or o. What scribe would buck the "worldly" French way of spelling it? It was worldly to note the 'o' like the French version of the word so they did. A few chose 'oo' but not many.

So you see, it isn't a great leap from OE clȳs-/clūs- to close. That is much nearer than many etyms of other words which take some truly great leaps. To say that the Saxon dump'd the word clys-/clus- and began noting clos- is laughable … it's downright ridiculous. However, they did adopt the French spelling and either thru the GVS or with pronunciation chasing spelling, the pronunciation shifted more to the 'o' sound as well. And we often see pronunciation chasing spelling (route is more often said as 'rowt' than root; thou was once thu rather than "thow" ... many such byspels.)

That is much more plausible than saying the English folk threw away their version of close for the French version. Thus, the word 'close' didn't infare the English tung with the French but before. Therefore the etym found in the OED is wrong.

BTW, I'v been told ... reminded ... that the OED is a dictionary and not an etymological dictionary ... it overall goes back to Middle English with byspels and more or less stops there.

"English is gaining more speakers every day." Which English do you mean? Any one of the many kinds of over Latinized-Greek-French-Pidgin-Creole-English mixes spoken throughout the World, or the West-Germanic first tongue of England and America?

"The fact that it has a large vocab borrowed from Latin doesn't mean it's not English." Hmmm...how so? It would seem that English speakers have lost the means to speak about a great many things without fremd words. That would seem to show that West-Germanic English is dying, albeit slowly. If we be true wards of English, we'd be making new words in all fields (high technicality notwithstanding), and hold unneeded borrowing way down, to keep the tongue timely and alive.

"All languages borrow words, there's no such thing as a pure language." Yes; whoever says or thinks any tongue is free from outside sway foreswears the truth. That is not what is at play here...at least for me.

There is nothing wrong, as far as I can see, with a folk keeping their tongue with the times, like in Iceland or France.

@jayles: " ...the Japanese guy, looking at me as if we are mad not to say take-out in the first stead....."

We are MAD!!! :-) LOL

@ þ: You are right -- George Orwell said as much in his "Politics and the English Language."

"Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent." -- George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language" (1946)

Hear, hear!

LOL --- We'll hav to agree to disagree for that it's all speculation. Until someone invents that wayback masheen and gets a bunch of recordings ... it's all ... ALL ... guesswork. I'v tried a few sundry ways to get yu to step away from that tree to see the forest but yur nose is stuck to the tree. So be it.

I don't know yur background but I can tell yu a bit of mine ... I'v liv'd in sundry countries ... lern'd German, Russian, Spanish to the point of being conversant ... dabble'd in French. One thing I know that that the clean sounds that one lerns in the classroom don't exist on the street. Many a time I hav been amaze'd at the spelling of a word after hearing it ... and that is from the ones that are fairly well fonetically spell'd. French ... blah ... they might as well note Chinese characters.

So, in arguendo, if both clys/clus and clos come from clusa then when they met again on the iland, the differences wouldn't hav been that great. Indeed, in ME we hav clus-, cloos-, and clos- ... and biclusen and biclosen. The French didn't hav beclose so biclosen could hav only come from OE beclysan. Yu can't say that belcose is beclysan, influence'd by French, but then say that close has nothing to do with clysan. That's a "non-sequitur". The bottom line is that a shape of close stood in English before the French came. It did not begin with the French. It was wisly influence'd by French as were many words but the root was alreddy there in OE. So I'm more in line with wiktionary, close:

From Middle English closen (“to close, enclose”), partly continuing (in altered form) earlier Middle English clusen ("to close"; from Old English clȳsan (“to close, shut”); compare beclose, forclose, etc.); and partly derived from the Middle English adjective clos (“close, shut up, confined, secret”), from Old French clos (“close, confined”, adjective) ...

Oh dear me! sighed Teddy, so now I must learn historical linguistics as well as Latin and Greek, just to show the other bears how to speak true English. Oh dear me, I'm quite stuffed as it is.

"DNA studies are beginning to show that the English are mostly
Brythonic (Celtic) in origin; no surprise to anyone who reads about
Boudicca of the Iceni and other tribes which stood up against the
Roman invasion, including the Welsh themselves.
The concept of alien Saxons spread across the English map is proving
to be unfounded. The Saxons came, but they managed to impose their
culture on everyone else, not their bloodlines, which probably only
affected the people in places like East Anglia. Same with the Vikings
in Yorkshire and the Danes in the Thames Valley. The Normans (that were mixed themselves) didn't marry into the people, only into the ruling classes.
Given that, you can see that to talk of the English as an Anglo-Saxon
race is a nonsense. The bulk of English people are Celts or pre-Celtic. "

If this is true then we should be sticking up for Welsh not English.
And English is every bit as elitist and imposed as Norman-French.

Today's English is truly a carrier of English culture - it shows some of them are a snobby lot.

If Stormfront (the racist forum) supports Anglish something is wrong. I love English because of it's ability to absorb loanwords. You people are pretentious.

"...insulting to British spelling."

The truth hurts. One of the biggest gripes folks learning English have is that the way words are spelled. It is downright awful.

Who or what is to blame? I think everyone here knows.

"activate, actuate - 'Begin' or 'start' say the same thing in simpler words."

I wouldn't say 'simpler' words, rather better understood because they are Germanic-English rooted words.

@AnWulf Thank you for this: it is refreshing to climb out of the latinate ruts of today's English.
That said, my understanding is that "pithy" stems from c 1520 not earlier?
And I seem to recall either Chaucer or Shakespeare using "siker" where we might use "certainly" today?

@HS Why is this thread here?
Well it has lead me to consider the roots of modern English; to become much more aware of the influences on modern English lexis; the 'snob' value of using 'rapidly' instead of 'fast', 'quick', 'speedy', to be more aware of those older-rooted words that still exist in dialects and in the dictionary.

If one wades through all the guff, it is a treatise about lexis and style and what is the effect on "register" in modern English, and how acceptable some of the older, less common words are in modern English. Curiously, in the IELTS (International English Testing System), one gets extra marks for using "less common" lexis correctly and in context; however I doubt they mean archaic words, but rather more academic and latin-rooted words.

Sometimes one comes across new coinages like "go-forward" as a noun instead of "progress"; abd perhaps this mirrors the demise of Latin-learning at school, and a step in some areas toward a more straightforward forthright English style.

At any rate, in my view it is a wonderful exercise to try writing English which avoids latin-rooted words wherever it can be done/ wherever it is feasible/wherever it is viable. Equally using Norman-French-rooted words like 'feasible' wherever do-able makes one more aware of the everyday business register in modern English. If one cannot do this one might be unaware of the on-flow from word-choice in terms of informal/business/academic register. Knowing when to use 'invoice' instead of 'bill', 'purchase' instead of 'buy', 'vendor' instead of 'buyer' is very much a deal of modern English and in reading this thread one cannot sidestep the moot point.

That said, many Latin-rooted words cannot be easily sidestepped in today's English, and that is the end-point of this thread. Stick to words in the dictionary if you wish to be understood. Be wary of out-of-date words unless you are writing a historical novel or something.

But don't mark "hearty greetings" wrong at the end of a letter or email, mark it as "seldom used today" as it was quite okay four hundred years ago. It is no more wrong than Chaucer was in his day. Cherchez le mot just!

@jayles the unwoven

Not sure how all that fits in to "grey areas of the English language".

Eschewing words derived from Latin and the romance languages seem to me to be a rather pointless exercise.
Do we really want to go around sounding like extras from Lord of the Rings?

@Hairyscot:

Ignoring all the reasons for unneeded doublets and triplets, and even quadruplets and quintuplets in English speech is what allows 'inkhorn' terms to be used by those shrewdly sly types, so as to make bureaucratic minced meat out of ordinary folk whenever their lives are touched by politics, law, medicine, etc... and most inkhorn terms are Latin or Old French. The terms may have been in our language for decades even centuries, but many are still impenetrable for the majority of native speakers.

Over the last 1000 yrs English speakers who have spoken a more Germanic form of English have often been treated as somehow 'base' or ' coarse ' for hundreds of years. Why? For no other reason than their forefathers were overcome by a small invasion force of French-ish speaking Vikings, and that they didn't have a natural Romance vocabulary of their overlords.

No matter what our stand-point now, lots of harm was done, plenty of people have been and are still being exploited due to jargon words and 'sesquipedalianism' , dare I say, freely allowed to enter be drawn-up in contracts and documents.

My question in return would be: Is it problematic if we started to shift our speech towards a more Tokienish style, as long as that speech brought more clearness, see-throughness and understandableness to the majority of native speakers, and even none-native speakers?

No need to cloud the meaning with "pedophile" when foot-lover would do instead.

One of the odd grammatical things about modern English is the way we use : want.
Eg: I want her to come

Oddly, if one puts this phrase into Ngrams it does not show up before 1804

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=I+want+her+to+come&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1500&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CI%20want%20her%20to%20come%3B%2Cc0

I had hitherto assumed that this usage started in the Middle Ages, but perhaps it was much later

This structure differs from both French and German (Je veux qu'elle aille: Ich will dass sie komme): the French phrase comes up on Google, but not the German one

So the questions are:
When did this structure with "want" come into use?
What did people say instead of it before then ?

Is the real Germanic way : She should/must/has to come ??

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=wanted+him+to%2Cwanted+her+to%2Cwant+him+to%2Cwant+her+to%2Cwant+you+to%2Cyou+should%2Cwant+thee+to%2Cwanted+thee+to%2Cthou+shouldst%2Cthou+shouldest%2Cwant+ye+to%2Cshe+should&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1500&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cwanted%20him%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwanted%20her%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cwant%20him%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bwant%20him%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bwant%20Him%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwant%20her%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwant%20you%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cyou%20should%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Byou%20should%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BYou%20should%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cwant%20thee%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bwant%20thee%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bwant%20Thee%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwanted%20thee%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cthou%20shouldst%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bthou%20shouldst%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BThou%20shouldst%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cthou%20shouldest%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bthou%20shouldest%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BThou%20shouldest%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwant%20ye%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cshe%20should%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bshe%20should%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BShe%20should%3B%2Cc0

So what did they use in Middle English for "decide"?
"Choose" is not quite the same thing.
"betake" seems little used in books (after 1500)

"slit" (cf schliessen, entschliessen) does not seem to be used in this meaning in OE

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=decide%2Cchoose%2Cchose%2Cresolve%2C+betake&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1500&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cdecide%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bdecide%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BDecide%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cchoose%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bchoose%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BChoose%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cchose%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cresolve%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bresolve%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BResolve%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cbetake%3B%2Cc0

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=is+coming%2Care+coming%2Cam+coming%2Cwill+come%2Cwill+be+coming%2Cis+going+to+come&year_start=1500&year_end=2012&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cis%20coming%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Care%20coming%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cam%20coming%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwill%20come%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwill%20be%20coming%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cis%20going%20to%20come%3B%2Cc0

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=will+come%2Cshall+come%2Cmay+come%2Cmight+come%2C+will+be+coming&year_start=1500&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cwill%20come%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cshall%20come%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cmay%20come%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cmight%20come%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwill%20be%20coming%3B%2Cc0

Do the above really chart the rise of continuous forms in English?
Do they really show a decline in the use of straight modals (esp shall) in favour of continuous?
Did the form "will be coming" really begin as just a Victorian affectation?

http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/6362-lamont.htm

My next question would be: how much did the post-1847 drive to teach English to Welsh children in schools contribute to the much-more-widespread use of continuous/progressive forms?
Did these forms become more common in 1800's because of grammarians' influences, the crossover from Welsh or upper-class affectation with over-politeness?

Either way it seems that the true Englishness of today's widespread use of continuous forms is questionable

"Because back in the 1840s, around 80 percent of people living in Wales were Welsh speakers, many of them spoke no English at all. Fast forward to the recent 2011 census and that number has dropped to below 20 percent."
as stated in :
http://sabotagetimes.com/life/mind-your-language/

Not sure whether this is well-founded or not, but if so could account for the late rise in continuous forms

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=has+been+wanting%2Chave+been+wanting%2Cis+loving%2Care+loving&year_start=1500&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Chas%20been%20wanting%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Chave%20been%20wanting%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cis%20loving%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Care%20loving%3B%2Cc0

Well this whole thing started because of the MacDonalds ad "I'm loving it", which to me is borderline - not something I would say.

What surprises me is that 'have/has been wanting' has declined so much lately

I just came across Anglish this early this morning. It's intriguing to say the least. However, it does seem to be clunky and awkward. Languages always was a bit of a hobby to me. But if you really want to get a good go at it, start with the kids, and tell them to start speaking Anglish to annoy their parents. :-)

There is something to be said for using, or reviving, the native English word, as over against the loan word, in current speech; because the native word is often, I think, clearer. Of course one can take it too far and end up speaking a badly crafted form of 'Old English' which would sound rather ridiculous. Better to learn Old English and speak it properly.

Nick (needed)
Mail (will stay hidden) (needed)
That's the best I can try.

amen to GMH
although hope of purging English has indeed grown gray hairs

anglish is a font - based on accurate angles
www.goldenmean.info/dnaring

more on agglutination....which has been bugging me.
1) respell it as: agluetination... suggesting glue
2) the "cling-on effect" (courtesy of Startrek)
3) it is the "beaver-dam" of human history which creates the pond we live in today!
etc

Jay, I think that would count as dialect. People would probably think you strange if you wrote like that in a national newspaper column.

maybe it would give the right impression then!

Addendum...

And to further demonstrate/PROVE his point, my professor wrote this sentence in English...

Night comes earlier each day.

We say /nait kumz er-li-er ich dei/ = nait kumz erlier ich dei (7 syllables)

But according to the spelling, it should be...
/nikht ko-mes e-ar-li-er e-ach dai/ = nikht komes earlier each dai (10 syllables)

So let's fix the dang spelling rules!

Consanguinity (consanguinuity) or Samebloodedness.

I see no reason to say either of them - other than pomposity.

By the way 'uncleftish springballs' are available at Tesco - buy one get one free - or as we say 'buy two'.

As for spelling - it doesn't matter - leave it as it is.

Ængelfolc! Good. Would you accept a little challenge for you for homework? If so, pls post your comments in Anglish on one of the following topics (100 words max): 1) soil liquefaction or 2) pneumoconiosis. Both these items have been in the news.

Not only should yall write a 100 word paragraph on "soil liquefaction" and "pneumoconiosis", but yall should also add them to the Anglish Wikipedia.

If I could write in Anglish, I honestly would spend my freetime translating articles into Anglish.

I must admit that Anglish would make medical definitions somewhat redundant. Once we call pneumoconiosis "breathingindustdisease" it's pretty obvious what it means, unless of course your greek is good anyway. "Soilflow" sounds good but isn't really specific enough to pinpoint the precise phenomenon.

Ængelfolc! I award you A- ! That was surprisingly intelligible. It certainly shows what could be done if academics were willing. It does however highlight the difficulty of settling on new terminology and labels that everyone understands and uses.
One word that I do detest is "disambiguation" which is often used by wikipedia.

"Damn I must have left my rainshield on the coach." said Harald (circa 1066)

jayles: Thanks for your input. You have given but one of today's meanings for 'melting'. It is a useful word!

melt (mlt)
v. melt·ed, melt·ing, melts
v.intr.
1. To be changed from a solid to a liquid state especially by the application of heat.
2. To dissolve: Sugar melts in water.
3. To disappear or vanish gradually as if by dissolving: The crowd melted away after the rally.
4. To pass or merge imperceptibly into something else: Sea melted into sky along the horizon.
5. To become softened in feeling: Our hearts melted at the child's tears.
6. Obsolete To be overcome or crushed, as by grief, dismay, or fear.
v.tr.
1. To change (a solid) to a liquid state especially by the application of heat.
2. To dissolve: The tide melted our sand castle away.
3. To cause to disappear gradually; disperse.
4. To cause (units) to blend: "Here individuals of all races are melted into a new race of men" (Michel Guillaume Jean de Crèvecoeur).
5. To soften (someone's feelings); make gentle or tender.
n.
1. A melted solid; a fused mass.
2. The state of being melted.
3.
a. The act or operation of melting.
b. The quantity melted at a single operation or in one period.
4. A usually open sandwich topped with melted cheese: a tuna melt.
[Middle English melten, from Old English meltan; see mel-1 in Indo-European roots.]
melta·bili·ty n.
melta·ble adj.
melter n.
melting·ly adv.
melty adj.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

So, you see, it spot-on for what I wrote about. The same is true for 'sway':

sway (sw)
v. swayed, sway·ing, sways
v.intr.
1. To swing back and forth or to and fro. See Synonyms at swing.
2. To incline or bend to one side; veer: She swayed and put out a hand to steady herself.
3.
a. To incline toward change, as in opinion or feeling.
b. To fluctuate, as in outlook.
v.tr.
1. To cause to swing back and forth or to and fro.
2. To cause to incline or bend to one side.
3. Nautical To hoist (a mast or yard) into position.
4.
a. To divert; deflect.
b. To exert influence on or control over: His speech swayed the voters.
5. Archaic
a. To rule or govern.
b. To wield, as a weapon or scepter.
n.
1. The act of moving from side to side with a swinging motion.
2. Power; influence.
3. Dominion or control.
[Middle English sweien, probably of Scandinavian origin.]
swayer n.
swaying·ly adv.

One could say 'clout', 'might', 'reach', 'win over', 'work on', 'stir' (emotion), 'upper hand', and so on, to mean 'sway'. 'Sway' means the same thing as 'influence', whether the thought be about things alive or dead.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

@jayles: "... the whole premise of anglish is that saxon words are better, Why?
Romance words do not denote snobbery or social status in France, or Spain or Romania.
Only in England."

Firstly, let me say, it is not only in England that romance words seem to tell breeding or standing. It is in the U.S., too. Secondly, Ænglisc (Germanic) words are not better, they rightly belong above all other words. Jm wrote a truth: "Anglish words are truer, they say what they mean." Think about French, Greek, Latin, and any other tongue that has made it into English. Why are they used? Why are these tongues thought of as greater than Ænglisc? Why are folks seen as 'smarter' when they speak them? Why forget our roots where ever they may be from? Why should Ænglisc end up like Norn, Gothic, or Yola?A borrowing here or there is not an evil thing, it will happen when two unalike folks get together. It is right and true for Ænglisc folks everywhere (England, the U.S., a.s.f.) to take care of their birthright. Folks need to know where they come from. The Ænglisc folks and their tongue are worthy of awe, just like any other.

Ængelfolc: as a descendant of the illegitimate son of and Norman lord and a welsh wench, I think my birthright would lie elsewhere than Anglish, I would suggest you check your own antecedents back over the last thousand years in case you too have some smidgen of Norman or Romance blood.
I gave you A- because it was (to my surprise) intelligible. However this style of writing would of course fail at university entrance because it is not "academic" enough. There is a list of acceptable academic words which you will find in TOEFL and IELTS courses.This is where the rot starts.
"influence" ranks among the most common three thousand words in modern English,(off the cuff). Substituting other words makes the passage less easily comprehended. Although the writing may be better wrought, as a means of communicating ideas it is less effective.
After years of latin at school, and despite years of German too, "soil liquefaction" is still for me much easier for me to understand than your alternatives.
Perhaps we should all use Hungarian instead?

A great read for anyone interested in how the Norman Conquest affected the English language. http://geoffboxell.tripod.com/words.htm

Ængelfolc: Ne haragudj! Ne sertodj meg. Nem akartalak zavarni. Ne felecs el, hogy eleinte azt mondtam, hogy teszik nekem az Anglish. Egyetertunk, hogy az akademiakban, es az egyetemeken all a problema. Nekem tetszik a magyar, ez altalaban sokkal konnyebb, ( miutan megszoktak.) De persze viccelodtem a magyarhelyetitesrol. Udv

Ængelfolc: I absolutely agree; knowing what is really English is a major issue; but of course the first task would be to get the average person interested. I wonder whether facebook and hotmail etc would consider adding Anglish as a species of English? Or whether a spellchecker-type Anglish highlighter would be feasible. Secondly you would have to consider carefully which words to target. Words such a government are in the top 3000 usage. How many borrowings would you allow from Norman french (which I submit IS part of our heritage). I would miss words like baliff, castle etc.
It is the renaissance wave of direct borrowings from latin that sound so pompous.
Your intent and endeavours are praiseworthy, albeit I do wonder whether you will see them as worthwhile in the eventide of your life. Sok szerencset kivanok!

We do try to teach "made up of" along with "consist of", but inevitably romance language speakers just choose the romance option. For the others the romance option is often less error-prone. Le mot juste is beyond them. They just want to pass the exam and get into uni.

Ængelfolc: These people are often not linguists as such. They may be, for example, an immigrant pharmacist, who needs a minimum of IELTS 7.0 to work professionally. Or they may be budding engineers, IT people, teachers etc. who wish to enter university and therefore need pass an English test. Some people are just not good at learning a second language. Of course romance speakers' first choice is familiar lexis: so a french speaker might say: May I propose a cup of coffee? Most non germanic speakers find the grammar of phrasal verbs like "made up of" incomprehensible and avoid them. In the limited time available it's more effective to focus on "academic" words to get them through the exam. It's just business sense.
If you look in the Longmans (advanced) dictionary for English learners, the top 3000 words are marked in red, and there are markers like W1,S2 to indicate more detail.

Ængelfolc: if you seek real pain in the english, take a look at "academic word list" on Wikipedia and follow the links. It is enthralling stuff, but shows what you are up against.

jayles: It would be a "Pain in the English" to attempt to convert foreign, non-English speakers because of the "Globalish" already being taught to them. I am setting my sights a lot lower. Words from mathematics should stay. Although, a lot of the Latin-Greek "science words" could be replaced.

The Old English lexis for arts, sciences, and literature fell out of favor because it fell into disuse. Very simply, the bourgeoisie wanted to be taken as a more noble and refined people--so they adopted more "Latin-French" words. The became embarrassed by Ænglish believing the snobby hype that it was VULGAR. The fix? Start proudly rediscovering and using the higher-register OE words!

"Old English was extremely resourceful in its ability to express synonyms and shades of meaning on its own, in many respects rivaling or exceeding that of Modern English (synonyms numbering in the thirties for certain concepts were not uncommon). Take for instance the various ways to express the word "astronomer" or "astrologer" in Old English: tunglere, tungolcræftiga, tungolwītega, tīdymbwlātend, tīdscēawere." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language

Recommended Reading: "Politics and the English Language" (1946) by George Orwell http://georgeorwellnovels.com/essays/politics-and-the-english-language/

More Latin-French words that are surprisingly Germanic at their roots:

* allegiance (from O.E. læt)
* Feudal (from Goth. *faihu, O.H.G. *fihu)
* Fee (from Frank. *fehu-od--same Germanic root as Feudal)
* furniture, per+form+ance ( both from W.Gmc. *frumjan

If you haven't already done so try: www.plainenglish.co.uk

What Old English prefixes would Anglish the word: embower...
inbower
onbower
umbower
abower
?

embower [ɪmˈbaʊə]
vb Archaic to enclose in or as in a bower

1. Enclosed or sheltered in or as if in a bower; 'a house embowered with blooms'
2. Being sheltered

Prefixes en-/em- to make into, to put into, to get into: enmesh, empower

The prefix "em-" is French, which derived from O.Fr. "en-", and is ultimately from L. "in-" (Gk. cognate is "en-"). A W.Saxon prefix that means the same thing is "on-" (cf. O.E. onliehtan "to enlighten"). The O.E. prefix "an-" is a variant of "on-", too.

BOWER is from O.E. *bur, which is from P.Gmc. *buraz. So, "onbower" or "anbower" would be equivalent to "embower".

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.

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: 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

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.

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.

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)

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)

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_words_of_Germanic_origin

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

Also:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?s=64de6d10338a15b64e6c42cf6b06b951&t=24351

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.

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).

@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: 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).

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").

@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...

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.

@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.

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...

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.

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.

"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!

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?