True to form, the English stand-ins for 'violence' are mostly more specific:
beating, hitting,striking,harming, threatening, anger.....
I was just wondering how best to put "domestic violence" ....
"wife/child-beating/threatening" was the best I could come up with.
Or maybe something with '(a)wielding'??

violence > bewielding ??? as in "ahimsa" -> non-violence

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rede
- gives other meanings too
In my worklife 'consensus' was sometimes benoted to shroud what really happened;- blood in the boardroom , the last man standing achieved a 'consensus'.
How about 'like-minded ground' or' 'widespread feeling'....

Why not "deal" for contract?
if bespeaking the document itself then deal-writ.

patient > tholemod
encourage > bield
peace > frith
condemn > fordeem
innocent, pitiable,fortunate > seely >
result > yield
accuse, challenge > becall

to approach > to nigh (a doing-word)
benefit > boon
satisfy > fulfil
revenge, persecution, destruction > wrack
request, reserve > bespeak
a difficult position > strait(s)
provocation, harassment > trolling
govern, protect, discuss > rede (as a doing-word)
depart, disappear, vanish > wend

"Likely in East Anglia..." .. and the rest of England???

http://mr-verb.blogspot.co.nz/2007/04/english-as-fourth-branch-of-germanic.html

I am still not won-over.

"75% of British and Irish ancestors arrive[d] between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago" (that is, long before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, and even before that of the Celts)
Based on a re-estimation of the number of settlers, there is a view that it is highly unlikely that the existing British Celtic-speaking population was substantially displaced by the Anglo-Saxons, and the latter were merely a ruling elite who imposed their culture on the local populations.[25][26]
from: wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people
Even the Daily Mail said that only 50% have SOME German blood.

I am not won over to the onlook that most of the population now have more than 50% German blood.

investment -> in-goings, in-cladding (a calque)

I am of the same mind - "English" lede are of mixed roots, varying in different parts of the country. My point was that we should not impose an exclusively Saxon/Norse/Dane tongue on them all when their heritage is so mixed, any more than we should impose Norman-French or Latin.
Put another way, if say 5% of the lede are of Norman descent, then would it not be fair to allow, well, at least 5% of the wordstock from Norman, and hardly "fair" to shut out any word on the grounds that it is fremd. Nothing wrong in English being a mixed tongue at all.
We just need some other logical bedrock to benote as a deeming mark.
Perhaps leave words like "chair" alone - if it ain't broke don't fix it.
But clearly there is little need for words like "in retrospect" where "in hindsight" is at hand. So the deeming mark could be nearer "don't use big words where little ones would do".