Let me show what I think is wrong with that argument. OE clysan (stem is clys) then we hav ME closen (stem is clos) ... all verbs went from -an to -en so that means nothing. So we hav clys and clos. Keep in mind that the right-spelling change the y in OE was often ü ... clys and clos are not that far asunder in the way to say them ... huru keeping in mind the sundry dialects and accents. So the right-spelling changes ... the French scribes hav a handy vowel/word and merely swap the spelling! The meaning of the words are the same, we're truly only talking about the spelling here.

Clysan was a weak verb ... it had an -ede past tense ... any ME shape would be -ed ... the ppl from the French was clore.

Guess what ... we find both in ME but closed much more often! So the Saxon grammar shape is what we're seeing with a spelling change.

There was no "replacing"! It was merely a spelling change. Thus the verb close was in English well before the 13th century. That is why the OED is wrong. They say that clos "replaced" clys. Nonsense! If it had, we would hav 'clore' as the ppl but it didn't. The right-spelling chang'd and they merely plugg'd in the 'o' for the 'y'.

It may be that clysan is an early borrowing but it came into the tung before the French. The thought that we didn't hav this word til somehow the French enlighten'd us is bull. The French/Latin train'd scribes only swapp'd in the 'o'. Nothing magical about it but the word in every witt (sense) of the meaning stood in English before the French came.

@goofy ... Here is what the Oxford Dict. Online (the free version of the OED) says about close: Middle English: from Old French clos (as noun and adjective), from Latin clausum 'enclosure' and clausus 'closed', past participle of claudere http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/close

However, we know that is wrong since "close" is found in Old English. It may be an early OE or even Germanic/Teutonic borrowing ... and that's ok ... but it seems that it didn't come from the French. That the "rood" (crux) of the thing ... an OE borrowing is fine as it came from trade and "natural" (cyndelic) interaction (betwixt doings?). It's the raising of French and Latin over English after 1066 (even more so during the "Restoration") that givs me hart-ake.

Be fele ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fele ) careful about "LATE Latin" words. A LATE Latin word is often a borrowing from some other tung ... often a Germanic tung. It's gets kind of murky as one goes back in time.

We hav many words that are said to hav come into English in MIDDLE English from French/Latin but we yet we find them, or something hella close to them in in OE ... another one is "fealty": ORIGIN Middle English: from Old French feau(l)te, fealte, from Latin fidelitas, from fidelis ‘faithful,’ from fides ‘faith’.

What do yu think that the OE word for "faithful" might be? ... Fǣle ... the ǣ often sounds like 'ee' ... hmmmm

Now you tell me, which word sounds more like "fealty" ... "feele" or "fideles"? Kind of close ... And early borrowing? Maybe ... And maybe the French word is has a Frankish root insted of an Latin root or is a blend of the two ... and the English fealty may itself be a blend of the the Anglo "feele" with the -ty afterfast.

@Gallitrot ... I'm trying to sprinkle more Anglo words about not only on blogs but in my novel. I can put in almost any Latin word or phrase and my beta readers thing I'm worldly. But if I put in a little known Anglo-word ... yu should hear the bemoaning! There are over 156,000 words in my novel and a few ... a few ... little known Anglo worlds get the whining!

I'm only on for a day or two ... the net is still out at the house tho a fix may be in sight!

The quote about hart at the end of my writing is not me saying it ... it's a quote from the book, a very old book (1873), and publish'd in London. So it's the opinion of a British writer, not an American one.

Until a few years ago, I had a neighbor who was English ... sometimes his accent got pretty thick and it was hard to understand him since he dropp'd a lot of letters out of words. I'll look on my old laptop when I get back to see if I still hav a link to video made by British TV (I think) quoting an Englishman way back in the 1700s that the English spoken in the "colonies" was a good as and often better than the English spoken by the upper class in England.

I can tell yu that the wide changes in spellings in Old English and even more so in Middle English from region to region (soke to soke) show that there was no one way of saying the words ... much less of spelling them. So before yu can claim that the "British" way of saying a word is the right way ... first yu must decide WHICH British way of saying yu're going to pick! Bob was a smart guy but he gewiss (certainly) didn't sound like anyone from the BBC!

The Latinates that I shun are those that needlessly shov'd aside their Anglo opposits. A Latinate here or there for "taste" or a change of pace is ok. But some of the burocratic or academic writings want to make slam those folks head into the wall. Think I'm "exaggerating"? Here's a quote: "The every-day vocabulary of the less educated is of Old English, commonly called Anglo-Saxon, origin ..." from "The Romance of Words", 1912, Chapter 1.

Another one to show that this bias is still with us, this one from 2010 on the Anglish thread: … loosely speaking, English has three levels of discourse: a colloquial level using words of Saxon origin, a sophisticated or poetic level using words of French origin, and a formal level using words of Latin origin.

Neither one of those is true. I can write well without noting many Latinates but sadly, too many folks would be lost since they were taught the Latinate and not the Anglo-rooted word.

I'll giv you one more byspel ... I'v finish'd my novel ... now it's time to go back thru and look for typos and such but the plot is more or less done. The book has over 156,000 words. Not once has one of my beta readers bemoan'd a Latin phrase ... a whole phrase ... but they hav whine'd about a few lesser known Anglo-rooted words! I can throw out almost any dumb, long-winded Latinate, a Latin word (or, yes, even a French word), or Latin phrase and they think I'm being worldly ... if I put out an out-of-date, obsolete, or archaic Anglo-rooted word, well Hells-bells! How dare I shuv aside an Latinate for (often a shorter) Anglo-rooted word!

There is one exception ... but she is reading an old Scottish novel and luvs some the old words that I note ... but she is the only one. Sigh ...

The latest "the news" attested from 1886. I think over 100 years of noting it is enuff.

DA ... The States do hav their own armies ... the militias/National Guard. The whole idea of the US at the beginning was a weak central govt that States could band together to defeat if need be. Thus the militias ... and thus the 2nd Amendment. The fact that the USSC has somehow found that the president can override a governor on the use of the NG (I think it was rooted on the fact that the Feds giv money to support the Guard) is only another step towards the growth of power by the central govt that the Founders never intended. Mark that in the War of 1812 that the several New England states which didn't support the war refuse'd to call out their militias to help. Unlike today's Guard, the militia's couldn't be call'd up by the Feds.

And yes, we often note nouns as adjectivs ... mountain bike, personnel carrier, history teacher, science building, race horse, asf ... it's common in Germanic tungs but unlike German itself, we don't slam the nouns together ... at least not first. If two nouns are found together often enuff, we MIGHT hyphenate and later put them together — doorbell.

Chaucer isn't all that hard ... read it out loud and the words start to fall into place. I think it was Chaucer who started out apologizing to his readers for writing in English rather than French! lol

Nonetheless, the doesn't note as many Latinates as those during the Restoration era when King Charles the something (who had been living in Paris while Cromwell held sway) and his "manred/mandred" ... his "entourage" came back to England after Cromwell died with yet another flood of Latinates.

Anglican - of, relating to, or denoting the Church of England or any Church in communion with it.
noun - a member of any of these Churches.

ORIGIN early 17th cent.: from medieval Latin Anglicanus (its adoption suggested by Anglicana ecclesia ‘the English church’ in the Magna Carta), from Anglicus, from Angli. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Anglican

The wonted way is to note "anglo" by itself or with another word ... "Anglo-American" can mean UK-US relations.

Otherwise, if yu want to talk about England related things ... then note "English".

That should be about as clear as mud ...

@Mediator ... pronunciations and spellings are always changing. Most of the "American" spellings are nothing more than earlier spellings from Middle English or early Modern English. "Colour" is a French rooted spelling.

colour - Origin: Middle English: from Old French colour (noun), colourer (verb), from Latin color (noun), colorare (verb) http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/colour

c1400(?c1380) Cleanness (Nero A.10) 456: Þat watz þe raven so ronk..He watz ***colored*** as þe cole.
c1540(?a1400) Destr.Troy (Htrn 388) 1063: Medowes & mounteyns myngit with ffloures, ***Colord*** by course as þaire kynd askit.
(1460) Will York in Sur.Soc.30 248: iij yerdis of ***collerd*** cloyth to a gowne.
a1500(1422) Yonge SSecr.(Rwl B.490) 230/5: Tho that haue eyen ***y-colorid*** like rede wyne ben dysposyd to woodnesse. < read wodeness.

Dropping the 'u' from colour to color was well-establish'd in ME and inline with the Latin spelling. Some preferr'd the French spelling of colour ...

Same thing with honor: c1300 SLeg.And.(Hrl 2277) 101: Wiþ gret ***honor*** hi hit [þe holi bodi] neme adoun and to buringe bere.

The screwy one is harbor ... Chaucer wrote: I saugh nat this yeer so murye a compaignye At ones in this ***herberwe*** [variations: herberw, herburhe, herborowe, harborowe, herbergh] as is now. ... Harbor with -our is taking the FRENCH ending and putting it to an Anglo-rooted word. That's just wrong on so many levels. Might as well go kiss a Frenchman's rear end and thank him for screwing up the spelling!

We go to a word like through ... OE þurh (thurh) ... so how did we get to through? Move the 'r' ... swap in the French 'ou' for 'u' and the French 'gh' (that's how the Norman-French scribes wrote the somewhat and sometimes guttural 'h' (hinging on the the dialect) ... Oh and the French 'th' for þ ... so now, the only Anglo spelling left is the 'r'! We don't hav the þ anymore, so we're stuck with the 'th' ... put the 'r' in ... 'thr' ... now put 'u' insted of the French 'ou' ... 'thru' ... unless one speaks with the guttural ending, one is 'thru' at that point. No need to keep piling on letters. But if you like the non-fonetic, French-rooted spelling of through, by all means, keep writing it.

The French right-spelling (orthography) put to Anglo words has screw'd up a lot of spellings. Heck, French "wrong"-spelling is screw'd up for French! But we can't blame it all on the French.

Just today, I had a Spanish speaking guy tell me that he calls a pickle a "pick-le" (with the "le = lay". Pickle comes from Middle Dutch/Low German "pekel" ... in ME it was pikel, pikkel, pikulle, & pekel.

I'm writing a long blog on spelling ... it's so screw'd up!

I'll leav yu with a few lines from "The Faerie Queen", Edmund Spencer (with v swappt for u when befitting):

Thus ill bestedd, and fearefull more of shame

So been they parted both, with harts* on edge …

At her so pitteous cry was much amoov'd

Her champion stout, and for to aide his frend,

Againe his wonted angry weapon proov'd:

But all in vaine: for he has read his end

Great God it planted in that blessed sted
—

*Hart is the more common spelling; but e before r was generally sounded a, as in clerk. This fact is recognised in the modern clumsy spelling of heart, which contains both the e and the a … — "A Biographical History of English Literature"

@Hairy Scot ... Just to make sure I said this right, I look'd it up in Army's FM 22.5 (the Field Manual for Drill and Ceremony):

When reporting to an officer in his office, the soldier removes his headgear, knocks, and enters when told to do so. He approaches within two steps of the officer's desk, halts, salutes, and reports, "Sir (Ma'am), Private Jones reports." The salute is held until the report is completed and the salute has been returned by the officer. When the business is completed, the soldier salutes, holds the salute until it has been returned, executes the appropriate facing movement, and departs. When reporting indoors under arms, the procedure is the same except that the headgear is not removed and the soldier renders the salute prescribed for the weapon with which he is armed.

---

To clarify ... One doesn't salute indoors UNLESS one is REPORTING to a superior officer. Reporting doesn't include just going into the commander's office. Reporting is a bit more serious and a lot more formal than someone telling you that the captain wants to see you. In that case, I'd knock on the door and say, "Sir, you wanted to see me?" ... But if I am told to REPORT to the captain, then I'm probably in trouble anyway and need to "toe the line".

Also, that's the Army's rule. The other branches may be different. I don't think the Marines salute while under arms.

I hope that helps ... BTW, movies and TV often get a lot of things wrong about the military. Truly, it wouldn't cost much to hire a vet to or even, nowadays, to go online and check the FMs.

Interesting, I find “get in contact’ or “keep in contact” to be less stilted than "contact" or "maintain".

@Mediator ... The 'sch' in schedule is not from German. So it is irrelevant, not meaningful, it recks not that the Germans note 'sch' as we note 'sh'. Then they also note 'w' where we hav 'v', 'v' where we hav 'f', the German 'st' = 'sht', 'sp' = 'shp', and they hav lost the 'th' sound all together. Now if yu want, "We work at the store" to sound like "Ve vork at te shtor" then we can note German right-spelling in English. Otherwise, we hav our own way of writing the 'sh' sound and that is 'sh', 'sch' (unless a German loanword) is wontedly an 'sk' sound. FWIW, I think all loanwords should be changed to the rightspelling of English ... thus those German loanwords should be changed to 'sh' but then most of them are names! ... And if they go thru Yiddish, they often are ... shmatte, shmear, shmo, shmooze, shmuck, shnook.

In the befall of "schedule" the 'ch' = the Greek χ which is fonetically shown in English by 'kh' but wontedly written as 'ch' (school, character, scheme). Thus, the 'sch' shows the Greek 'skh'. The British way to say it ("shed-yul") is from French influence (tho not the spelling), while the US ("sked-yul") is based on the Greek original. That the Brits like the French way better is their choice but it doesn't jive with other Greek χ rooted 'sch'/'ch' words.

As for me, I'd like to drop the 'sch' altogether and go with either 'sk' or 'sh' hing(e)ing on how it is said. I'd be happy with skool, karacter, and skeme. If one wants to stay true to the χ then 'kh' ... skhool, kharacter, and skheme.
BTW, sked http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sked is often seen in the US, it's only a matter of time now before schedule becomes skedule in the US. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/skedule

No problem with tomato and potato on our side of the pond ... the rime (rhyme) over here. :)