@AndyAlm ... Just because that the rules can change doesn't mean there isn't a "correct" English. Otherwise, the tongue will fall asunder into sundry tongues as happened to Latin after Rome had fallen or happened to Anglo-Saxon after the Takeover. English has a lot of room in its rules for flexibility (such as pled, pleaded) but it does have rules!

You have trouble reading stuff from 100 years ago? That's likely just a wordstock problem.

If you don't know the spelling of 500 years ago, I can see how that might be a little hard. Otherwise, it is just the wordstock that might trip you up. Many of those words are still in the wordbooks, just not used nowadays ... like anfald (one-fold ... simple), umbe (around), both as standalone preposition and a forefast (prefix) as um-, wanhope (despair) ... forefast wan- (lacking) +hope, wantrust (distrust), asf.

Going back 1,000 years takes one to the fore-Takeover (pre-Conquest) days when Latinates were few, pronunciation and grammar rules were unlike today, and there were sundry dialects tho grammar anfaldness (one-foldness - simplification) was happening albeit slowly. That takes some swoting! lol

Found these by accident:

To study hard ... swot ... Teachers spend their evenings swotting up on jargon.
noun - a person who studies hard, esp. one regarded as spending too much time studying.

If you're looking for a word for labor/toil ... it's "swink" (OE swink, ME swinken)

For which men swink and sweat incessantly. - Spenser.

tholen swink ... to make an effort

For the verb form, it looks like swink then either swank, swunk(en) or swonk, swonken

swinker - laborer
swinkful - Full of toil, hard-working, diligent; as noun: those who toil or labor.
swinkfulness - diligence

So now the Department of Labor would be the Department of Swink! ... The Labor Party would be the Swink Party! lol

Here ya go: Wantrust is legit: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Wantrust \Wan"trust`\, n. [Pref. wan- as in wanton + trust.]
Failing or diminishing trust; want of trust or confidence; distrust. [Obs.] --Chaucer.

---

Here's my tuffy for the day: claim ... as in a claim/assertion

He claims/asserts that John took your pencil.
Is it your claim/assertion that Pluto is a tungol?

I found in OE:
onspǣc - onspeak
ontalu - ontale?
ontige

He onspeaks that John took your pencil.
Is it your onspeak that Pluto is a tungol?

@Jayles ... If I had athlete's foot, I wouldn't tell her that I had jock itch! lol ... Actually, I've had to tell tell a gf ... and I used the term jock itch and she helped me find the right stuff at the drugstore ... that was marked for jock itch! lol

@Stanmund ... good catch, "wan" was a forefast as far back as OE.

±wana m. lack, want, deficiency / w. bêon to lack, fail. (same root as wane)
wanhælþ f. (wanhealth) weakness, sickness (without health)

The only word that I know of that still has it is wanton ... wan- + OE teon (or pp togen) (train, discipline) ... wanton is "lacking/without discipline".

Dutch still has wan- and German wahn-.

That might solve the "develop/undevelop" problem ... wanvelop and unwanvelop or unvelop and wanunvelop ... still funny when one knows that velop means "to wrap" and develop is to "unwrap".

@anurag ... Have a cite? Your claim that it is "on clock" gainsays what is taught. I would think it would be "on the clock" if you want to brook "on" instead of "of". Then if someone says "It's a quarter of nine", it would make sense spread out to "It's a quarter of nine on the clock."

My guess is that both "of the clock" and "on the clock" were used.

@Brixen and Travis ... Saying "a quarter of" and "a quarter til" are both common in the South.

@addyatg ... 63 weeks for Pashto? Wow, that's long. I'v heard of similar lengths for Arabic but that usually involves something like 48 or so weeks for basic Arabic with another 15 or so for a dialect.

Years ago I learned a little Farsi which is a kissin' cousin to Pashto. Except for that hen-scratching they call an alphabet, I didn't find it difficult ... but then, I only learned a little. Oddly, when Persians use the Latin alphabet, they include the vowels which does make it a lot eather to read.

@Ængelfolc ... Thanks for the into. It looks like scrutiny falls into that gray area since it, at least, has a truly near Germanic cousin. My guess that it might have been in the tongue just sleeping and was eathly ed-called upon hearing the Latin word. But it is just a guess and maybe even wishful thinking ... but enuff for me to keep scrutiny on the brookful list.

As for "ic" sounding like "i(t)ch" ... that is now the "academic consensus" of how it was was said in the West Saxon dialect from which we get most of the Anglo-Saxon writings. Most sites will tell you that the "c" = "ch" before and after the vowel "i" ... thus "cild" is said as "child". There are many byspels of the AS word beginning with "c" that, in nowadays English, have a "ch" sound. Sometimes, but not oft, the writers in AS put a dot above the "c" to betoken the "ch" sound.

However, I strongly gainsay that is said as "ch" or "ç" on the back end aside from maybe a few folks. "Ic" was said as "ik" in the northern part of England. Indeed in ME you'll find ik, ike (like my beloved ikke from Berlin) as well as ich and iche ... and other spellings (like ih). I could believe that "ic" could have had the sound of the Scottish "ch" as in "loch" or the German "ich" ... or I could even go as far as "ish" like in Swabia ... but "i(t)ch" or "iç" just sounds all wrong to me. So I fall in with those who use the "northern" way or the "early migration" way of saying the word as "ik" or "ich" (with the ch like in German ich or Scottish loch).

@Entomophagist ... Very true, Tuesday week means "a week from Tuesday" in Suthren!

@kylierain ... Never ... never ... trust Microsoft Word's grammar check! ... Maybe it has gotten better since I tried it years ago, but it was so bad that I turned it off. For that matter, I don't even use MS Word anymore!

@Matt P ... Not true. Cannot is used, taught, and stated as preferred in the US ...

Others, a good discussion here: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/cannot-or-can-not/

and here http://www.english-test.net/forum/ftopic8863-15.html