@Suzanne ... I agree with yu that noting talk is better than converse or conversate.

I'll disagree with yu about u or yu ... The 'ou' diphthong for the u/oo sound is a holdover from Norman-French scribes and should (shood?) be gotten rid of for this sound.

Definitely should lose the second e since the i before it is short. It would be better as 'definit' and 'definitly'.

my bad
North American informal used to acknowledge responsibility for a mistake:
Sorry I lost your CD. It’s my bad
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bad

Altho today's noting of it is said to hav started in basketball pickup games, we do find that Shakespeare noted the phrase with something like today's meaning, in his Sonnet 112:

Your love and pity doth the impression fill
Which vulgar scandal stamp'd upon my brow;
For what care I who calls me well or ill,
So you o'er-green my bad, my good allow?

It is in M-W: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conversate

It is a word ... not one that I would note, but it is a word.

I think nigel is right ... It is the vagueness of "stuff" in this sentence. What "stuff" are yu talking about? In context it becomes clearer if yu say: I don't watch much stuff like that (maybe talking about a TV program or a genre of film).

The grammar is ok. It's only out of context and thus is vague.

@spiceman ... Those are not past tenses but rather subjunctives and are right.

The subjunctive is typically used after two structures:

1. the verbs: ask, command, demand, insist, propose, recommend, request, suggest + that ...
2. the expressions: it is desirable, essential, important, necessary, vital + that ...

In #1, the kid is clearly not going to bed. It's a command when you say, "It's high time (that) you WENT to bed." ... Think of: I wish you WERE here (when the person is clearly not there).

In #2, "I would rather (falls under #2 - desirable; the implied verb is "like") that you DID not come with me".

In #3, another "desirable", "I wish that bank accounts CAME with interest-free loans attached."

The subjectiv form often looks like the past tense.

The "rather" usage is a set form that goes way back. I had/would rather is an idiom in which the verb (like) is simply implied. Structurally it may be somewhat confusing, but semantically it's perfectly fine and it's been in use for so long that I don't think anyone would ever misunderstand it.

Here's a good word: hella ... from "helluva ... from hell of a lot of" ... means many things ... very, much, a lot of, actually, really ... and has been put forth as a forefast for 10^27 ... Google notes as the forefast for 10^27 ... I think makes the first anglo-rooted forefast for big numbers. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hella and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hella_(word)

Hella was inheld on the BBC's list of 20 words that sum up the 2000-2009 decade.

Anent rime ... it made it to ME both as a noun and a verb (rimen) http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rime#Middle_English. If it made it to 1450, then it might hav made it to erly NE ... that will take a bit digging.

OE also had:
OE rīmboc (rimebook) - calendar
OE rīmcræft (rimecraft) - arithmetic, math
OE rīmtalu - number-tale (from which we get tale as a big number).

About the seemingly -endlic/endlic afterfast = able ... after doing some digging, I think the afterfast is only the -lic. The end/en is part of the word. For byspel, acoren (a-chosen) - pp of aceosan (a-choose) + lic = acorenlic = eligible, worthy of choice.

acumen (a-come) + lic = acumen(d)lic = possible, tolerable
acumen(d)licness = possibility

miht (might) + lic = mihtlic = possible

There are many others. But will it work? Well, if we take broken and put the -lic afterfast we get "brokenlic" for breakable, fragile which I think works better than brokenly (tho brokenly stands but means "in a broken manner"). ... OK, I cheated, the word stood in ME ... brocenlic > breakable, fragile, eathly broken or benothinged ... made it to erly ME but then was insteded/besteded by fragile.

Some more French words listed as Germanic roots (but not specific on the rootword) ... garrison (from garir ‘defend, provide’, of Germanic origin) and garret as well. My guess is that they are from the same root that OE gar (spear >>> garfish, garlic) is from. Is there a Frankish *gar that is the root of garir?

French haut (from which we get haughty) is said to come from the Latin altus but I think that's a little shaky. It is at least a blend of Frankish hoh + altus but liken O.Fris. hach, Goth. hauhs, and even Ger. hoch. Maybe it took the final t from Latin altus but I think giving the credit to Latin is a bit of a stretch.

Dance? It says that the end root is unknown. Did Ger. tanzen come from the French word or is that a common root? It's not Latin.

Sorry about the long post ... but I'm lucky to get something to go once ... so I hav to do it all at once. And sometimes it twofold posts.

That's cool about the ON word slipping into Algonquin. If it hadn't been for the Little Ice Age ... and some internal Viking politics ... we'd likely be speaking a dialect of ON!

OE stocc and stycce are nother (different) words. Stocc made it thru as stock but stycce > ME stucche/stuche, stiche, steche ... didn't make it thru Early NE.

One also asks for a "piece" of gum ... hanging on the shape.

"New" old words that barely made it into ME before being shoved aside:

openlic > public

gewunelic (also iwonelic) > ordinary, common, usual (Ger. gewöhnlich) ... same root as "wont/wonted" (from OE gewunod).
> also in OE was wunelic … adj. wonted, usual, accustomed

gemanelic(h) (also gemanlich, imænelich) > common (Ger. gemein) ... I'v also seen "meaner" in very old writs meaning "common" ... "the meaner man" ... the common man tho it wouldn't mean that nowadays!

lomlic(h) > frequent

missenlic > various, manifold, different, diverse
missenlicnes(se) > variety, diversity, difference (I didn't see this shape in ME, only in OE.)

I can't think of a reason why "I've to go" is wrong but I don't hear it and wouldn't say it. Soothfast, it's hard to say "I've to go" without saying "I hav to go" and that's likely why one doesn't hear it. "I've to go" doesn't flow and speaking a tung is about making the words flow together. So while it isn't wrong grammatically, it isn't said.

Aside from that the "have to" idiom that is usually said with emphasis so it loses it emphasis if yu try to contract it.