Any stand-in for "tenant"??
"Holder" of course, but somewhat befuddling when talking of "landlord and holder". I am looking for something more pointed, like "fiefholder" or something.

So do we keep "change" "exchange" in our "English" wordstock because of its Celtic origins???

"But theft serveth of wicked note
Hyt hangeth hys master by the throte" MS Hari 1701 f14

I wonder whether we could use "benoter" for "consumer"; and "end-benoter" for "end-user"???
Nice to see this word in wiktionary. I found "A Dictionary of Archaic and Provincial Words, Volume 2, Halliwell, 1860." quite an eyeoopener in terms of the breadth of old wordstock.

Well I'm not very bookish, but looking at the doing thereof, where would we begin?
Whom are you truly going to write to, using a requickened OE word? Surely not your boss or any other business-body, as one would not be understood. I have dared to use "wordstock" instead of "vocabulary" or "lexis", and that is okay because it is readily understood; but if you push OE words at me, (unknowing as I am of such), I am just bemused. What needs to happen first is that young folk are taught OE (or maybe Dutch or something) that will make these words easier to take on-board: or another way - let the news-writers and storytellers push some requickened words into their writing. Either way there would be much marketing and talking-round to do.
Has anyone thought for instance of writing something for the last side of Time magazine? something understable but somewhat Chaucerian I would lay forward.

Why can't Old English words be dusted ... and put back in the English wordbook?
Search me, bro'. Guess we would have to get folk to use them again first.
'hlaf' (loaf) is I think a Viking word and they went to Rus and gave them 'xlep' (khlep) which means 'bread' in modern Russian. The English term "upper-crust' meaning the aristocacy comes from the practice of the lords claiming the top of the loaf. Of course in those days bread didn't come in plastic bags from the supermarket, and McDonalds was undreamt of.

In my life I have dared to dream and sometimes lived my dreams.... for a while. After all we live in the age of the water-carrier! (Aquarius) So yes ... I do mark that in this neck-of-the-woods newswriters do seem to seek out good English words wherever do-able. And when we have cleaned up English we shall shift onwards to rooting our greed and wrongdoing wherever they be!

It all rides on whether one wishes to be understood by all and sundry; choosing good English words and steering clear of latinate ones, with perhaps a sprinkling of good English words that have fallen by the wayside but are still in the wordbook is to me about all one can ask for. Making up modern spellings for words that are no longer in the wordbook i think would put the writing beyond the pale and make it not understood.
It does make my heart ache but I fear we should stick with what can be done for the time being, rather than bringing in requickened words that few would understand.

Might I put forward "benote", that is since "use" is a yoked (transitive) verb be can clip on "be" as a forefix, and this will help cast asunder the meaning from "note" as otherwise spoke. Quite whether folk would understand the meaning of "benote" as "use" is the big ask. But it would at least make the spelling less of a moot point.
Here I sit, a lonesome meed-getter, cast upon the midden of life, nought to nuttes!

On another moot-point, I thought about benoting "foreslay" (Vorschlag) instead of suggest, but in English it sounds as though I just killed someone before they slew me!

For myself I am quite happy to get rid of "utilize", "utilization" from today's English usage; that is quite enough. One must think of the end-user and deal with all the sundry uses of the word. Furthermore "brook" is so useful in the meaning of "allow" that for me one should not sully the meaning-in-being further.

If I look up "brook" or "note" online I find many meanings but not "use".
Remember "use" is deeply embedded in modern English; it's not use trying to say otherwise. It's a useful word not useless and has many uses. There I've used up nerarly all my arguments, apart from "used to " and "get used to" . Much ground to cover here.