@Derek ... That's pure nonsense since the question was out of context. Thus it was left to us here on the forum to try to place in some sort of context that makes sense. As you pointed it out, it was only a clause ... an out-of-context clause. If you can think of byspels with "8 inches" as the subject then you should be answering the question rather than trying to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.

I gave different examples of how "eight inches" with verbs around it could be used. If the person asking is an ESL learner, then he (or she) needs to see it some sort of context. ESL learners are often befuddled by why a board is eight inches but it is "an 8-inch board" and not "8-inches board". Could that not be the sense of the question if the learner is trying to add a verb to it? Or are you clairvoyant enough to read the asker's mind for me?

Did I not point out that the subject of the sentence was length? Now what on earth makes you or ing think that I do not know what I am talking about?

As Hairy pointed out, there seems be a difference between British and American usage here. That could be the source of confusion for the asker. I accept that. No problem. He made a contribution to answering the question. But you and ing are too busy trying to tell me that I don't know what the subject is instead of answering the question.

If I've made a typo, go ahead and point it out if that makes you feel good about yourself. I make lots of typos so you should be able to do that quite often. If you think I have the wrong perspective on a question, feel free to say something like, "I think the asker meant this ..." and then try answering the question yourself. I don't have a problem with a different perspective on the question, but don't tell me that my perspective is without basis and that yours is the only one.

If you have point on the question to make like Hairy, then show how it is different. But instead of answering the question yourself, you have the audacity to try to lecture me as if I don't know the subject of the byspel I used and rudely state, as if it is a given fact, that I'm not addressing the question while, at the same, you're not answering the question yourself. If you are just going to be silly and hypocritical, then I'm going to jump on you with both feet.

To other readers of this thread, I apologize for my rant ... It's been a long, frustrating day and perhaps I'm a little short on patience today.

@Ængelfolc ... I didn't mean those words were a threat to English but only to show that English alreddy brooks words from umbe the world so the all-worlders can't truly bemoan that English is not "inclusive"!

BTW ... I forgot, to cast lots is to leave something to haps ... One might say that that casting lots in a presidential election is, in a way, leaving things to haps! lol

I've always thought it odd that betray and bewray mean the same thing and ... seemingly ... come from sunder roots.

You're right ... I've been to Scandinavia and those who speak English ... many do ... speak it very well.

In today's world, there are no grounds for non-erd speakers to gain the helm of the tung. It is much too eath for non-erd speakers to befriend an erd-speaker online ... I have many kiths (acquaintances) from umbe the world via Facebook and other ways that love to learn and speak English.

I just got an email this morning from a Thai friend (who wanted to brook some be- words) with this:

Surprised! I used befuddle with two people, one was Canadian,he said he didn't know this word then he turned to ask Howie who came from USA and 78 years old. Howie laughed and told us that "I used it with myself everyday" lol

Really enjoy it and thank you so much.

Vow is a Latinate ... as is promise

oath - solemn promise
behight - to vow, to pledge, to intrust, to call, to designate; also a noun; early meaning of hight was a vow and to vow also but now is more just to name ... if brooked at all.
behest upspringally meant vow but now means more an order or command
wed was also a vow, now means to join.

So we're truly on left with two ... oath and behight. I behight to brook more Anglo-Germanic root words!

@Jayles ... As I said, we have met the widderwin and he is us.

(BTW, widder [also wider or wither or sundry others] means against, contra, counter ... for byspel, widdershins (in the wordbook) is counterclockwise. So the person who is against you winning is your opponent, adversary, enemy ... widderwin(e)

Yes, ranch has a long, twisted etym. Range has the same root. What made you look that word up?

Anent one-world English ... English alreddy had many words from sundry other tungs ... tomato, chocolate, coyote, asf from Nahuatl; hooch, honcho, asf from Japanese, boondocks (boonies) from Tagalog ... many ur-folk (first folks) words, klong from Thai; checkmate, badgir (badgeer), kiosk, purdah, satrap(y), asf from Persian/Farsi; samsara and others from Hindi, words from likely all the European tungs ... I don't know how much more all-wordly it can get!

@Ængelfolc ... I think the befuddling would be to look in world-english wordbook and see tr and intr (transitive and intransitive) or cf and cp (compare) and then go to an erd-english wordbook and see yk and ykl (yoked and yokeless) or lk (liken).

BTW, the OED online has two version ... US and "world" ... which I find utterly irksome!

The meaningful thing is that we (erd-speakers) be at the helm of the wordbooks whether it is for erd-speakers or ESL learners. If we let the all-worlders (globalists) run it, then you are right ... we're doomed! There will always be nooks or erd-speakers ... British English, American English, Australian English, asf. But we can't let "Indian English" take the lead.

Even then, at the same time, we're trying to wrest wieldness/wielding (control) of the tung from the Latin lovers.

Jayles likely has more knowledge of things like this ... but I have friends in Asia and they like the Anlgo-root words. For byspel, they like the words with the forefast be- and want to learn these words. But I have to tell them that most of them would likely befuddle erd-English speakers since so many are unbrooked by us! So maybe it isn't so much of a problem all-worlding the tung ... as it is with us. We have met the widderwin and he is us!

I think we all agree that the first one sounds wrong. This was raised by an ESL learner. I told her that the second two were better. I was just trying to put my finger on why.

@Dogreed, I think the "but" works better here as well.
@HairyScot ... I agree. Word order matters in English. In the end, I came to the same thoughts.

Thanks!

@Ængelfolc ... I don't think we have two sunder wordbooks ... it would befuddle folks to go back and forth. It's alreddy befuddling enuff for ESL folks to go between American English and British English! lol

I just saw this on a website today as an option to vote up a post on a forum: Upvote post.

Vote may be a Latinate but at least it's good Anglo-Germanic wordbuilding.

And ... The word vote has lost it's etym meaning of a vow to do something.

Maybe instead of "voting" would should brook "choose" or "choice" ... Upchoose?

@Hairy Scot ... How ironic is it that the Scots have kept so many of the Old English words?! ... Many times I see word mark "obsolete or Scottish" ... or "archaic or Scottish". If it weren't for the Scots, many more Anglo-Germanic words would have been lost.

As a teenager, I had a friend's mom who would always answer the question, "Where are you at?" with "Between the a and the t" ... That has always stuck with me and reminds me that the "at" isn't needed. She didn't care about ending the sentence with a preposition ... only that the preposition wasn't needed.

I should stay off here and work on my novel! lol ... thanks

@Hairy Scot ... I'm aware of the Anglish Moot. I commend their enthusiasm even if some of their efforts have been a little wild and not thought out ... but even those make one think about things so that is good as well. OTOH, some of them are really good! There are a few sharp ones. I have even put a few ideas in the pot. I think it is a good exercise to make one think about the roots of the words and the words that we have either lost or are in danger of losing.

That is point of the Anglish Moot. It is an exercise to ed-building (ed- = re-) the Germanic wordstock. For those like me who like old words ... it's fun.

I can write with few aft-1066 Latinates but most folks would be lost. Most folks don't know the meanings of the 90+ (maybe more) words that begin with the prefix be- and would be stumped. Here a good list: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/50-words-with-the-most-whimsical-prefix/ that was put out today. Most don't know the old prefixes that are rarely seen anymore. So was that evolution of the language a good thing?

Evolution of the language is like beauty ... whether it is good or bad ... is in the eye of the beholder. I would not want to go back to OE with declension of adjectives and nouns and that they have gender. So in the eyes of a Saxon, what we have now might be an abomination both on grammar and the overuse of Latinates.

The "natural evolution" of English came to an abrupt halt in 1066. Part of that "unnatural evolution" afterwards, was the attempt by "scholars" to shoehorn English into the Latin grammar structure which gave the nonsense rules like no splitting of the infinitive and don't end a sentence with a preposition ... this just wasn't done in Latin so they thought they could "raise" the level of English by imposing some of the rules on English.

There were once more flat adverbs ... now not so many ... is that good or bad? I don't know. But if one choose to use an adverb "flatly", I don't get bent out of shape over it.

There were once many more strong verbs and many have become weak ... is that good or bad? I don't know. I like strong verbs and will likely use the strong conjugation over the weak.

The fettle of the English tung is steadily flowing ... whether it is good or bad is in the eye of the beholder!