I stumbled across another OE word that is still alive albeit with an unlike meaning. The verb "redd" means to tidy up O.E. hreddan "to save, to deliver, recover, rescue"
... Somehow it got confused with another verb, O.E. rædan "to arrange".

Both aredden and redden can be found in ME as "to save, to deliver, recover, rescue".

We need Anglo words for "to save, to deliver, recover, rescue". Can't really use redd in the old sense as it has lost those meanings ... And there are alreddy other words that are homonyms like read (bygone tense) and the hue red. Don't need another "red".

Maybe edquicken aredden as aredd? The 'a' adds another sound and helps with the spelling to tell the difference.

Things to think about.

Past is eath ... bygone. Just use it as a noun. In the bygone, we had horses. Or yu can brook yesterdays ... just more typing.

Yes, rank is Germanic. Yeoman is kenning of geong>>>yeong + man >>> young-man. It's brooked by the navy as a position, clerk but not a rank. I have some pretty good thoughts on different ranks. OE had a few and I can spread out from those and others. For byspel, the Russian word for private means the one who stands in a line. So a buck-private could be a lineman.

Lots of word that can be edquickened:

beðryccan to press down.
beðrýn to press
ofsittan to press down, repress, oppress, : occupy,
hedge in, compass about, besiege. ['ofsit']
ofðringan to throng, press upon
ofðryccan (e, i) to press, squeeze, /: oppress, afflict, repress, /: occupy forcibly.
onâsettan to set upon, place on, impress upon
onðringan to press on or forward
press f. press
±ðringan to press, squeeze, crowd upon, throng

So pick how ye want to use them ... press, print ... if you like thrutch, then, from the list, you can also make bethrutch (to press down). Maybe thrutch=press; bethrutch=print.

Thrutch ... at first I paid it no heed since the only stead that I found it was wiktionary and unreferenced ... but I'v since found it at the Oxford Dict Online (I'll fix the wiktionary entry in a bit to show a reference).

noun Northern English a narrow gorge or ravine.
verb [no object, with adverbial of direction] chiefly Mountaineering
push, press, or squeeze into a space:
I thrutched up the final crack to a small pinnacle

Origin:
Old English (as a verb), of West Germanic origin

And some funny meanings here: http://thrutch.com/ ... for byspel - Dog's at it again, thrutching my leg last night.

@Ængelfolc ... *Forþgesceaft

"II. the future world, state, or condition, "He ða forþgesceaft forgyteþ and forgýmeþ" (he forgets and neglects the future)" ... You could use "world" and it would make sense too ... He forgets and neglects the world.

Of course, we're seeing it taken out of the writing so we don't know how it fits in overall. The thing is, if we edquicken the word as forthgeshaft ... or forthshaft ... It doesn't say "future". It means nothing without knowing that shaft has another meaning besides a staff.

The forthgeshaft of mankind is in doubt ... Folk will say, "Huh? What's forthgeschaft?"
The forthcome of mankind is in doubt ... Might sound funny but I think folk would know the meaning.
The to-come of mankind is in doubt ... Again, it might sound funny but would be understandable.
Even Stanmund's morrows would be understandable.
The (to)morrows of mankind is in doubt.

I don't mind using forthgeshaft or forthshaft but it would need to be glossed every time for quite a while.

Here is one of those frainable words: stun

Most will list it as from c1300 "probably" from O.Fr. estoner "to stun, daze, deafen, astound," from V.L. *extonare, from L. ex- "out" + tonare "to thunder".

Anytime I see VL, I get a little wary. Who took the word from whom?

At least the old Webster's gives a nod to OE stun:

Stun \Stun\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Stunned; p. pr. & vb. n.
Stunning.] [OE. stonien, stownien; either fr. AS. stunian
to resound (cf. D. stenen to groan, G. st["o]hnen, Icel.
stynja, Gr. ?, Skr. stan to thunder, and E. thunder), or from
the same source as E. astonish. [root]168.]
1. To make senseless or dizzy by violence; to render
senseless by a blow, as on the head.

Astonish \As*ton"ish\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Astonished; p. pr.
& vb. n. Astonishing.] [OE. astonien, astunian, astonen,
OF. estoner, F. ['e]tonner, fr. L. ex out + tonare to
thunder, but perhaps influenced by E. stun.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

AS - Anglo-Saxon:
+stun n. din, crash, whirlwind.
stunian to crash, resound, roar: impinge, dash. ['stun']
tôðunian to astonish
* 1916, John R. Clark, "A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary for the Use of Students"

No dates given but in sundry sources.

The Middle English Dictionary: [OF presse, prese & CL pressus & ML pressa.?Also cp. LOE presse a clothespress.] ... and I assume LOE means Late Old English. I don't know the dates of "late" OE.

Only my guess but it probably came in as a late Latinate shortly before the Occupation began ... I haven't seen anything with it in it

press f. press ... 1916, John R. Clark, "A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary for the Use of Students", press.

press f. A press (in a list of requisites for spinning), Anglia ix. 263, 12. Cf. Pannicipium a presse, Wülck. 600, 14 : vestiplicium, 619, 10. http://bosworth.ff.cuni.cz/025350

Here is the declension:

press Strong Feminine Noun
press (for clothes)
press Singular - Plural

Nominative
(the/that séo) press - (the/those þá) pressa

Accusative
(the/that þá) presse - (the/those þá) pressa

Genitive
(the/that þære) presse - (the/those þára) pressa

Dative
(the/that þære) presse - (the/those þæm) pressum

Here's another word that needs to be edquickened: OE nytt ... use, utility, advantage

OE nytt, y = ü, ue; often lives to nowadays English as ī as in fire (OE fyr) but not always. Besides, there is alreddy night. Can't use use just a 'u' since that could be in-blended (confused) with nut.

nuett or use an umlaut nütt .
nuttlic useful (German nützlich)
fornuettlic, fornüttlic ... very useful from OE fornyttlic

BTW, I forgot to say that the word "press" does appear in OE for clothes as in a clothes-press. Most likely a pre-1066 Latinate tho there is no background given for it so it is unknown. Soooo ... under the 'Anglish-rules' that pre-1066 Latinates can be kept ... press can be kept and I would stretch to words from it like pressure. But if ye truly want, we can 'press' forward to digging out another OE word.

@Stanmund ... I can only rede forbearance. You cannot change (Celtic root) the tung overnight. Take small steps where you can. It has taken me days to edwrite a slice (Germanic root [GR]) in mostly Anglish of tale that I'm writing. Truth is that is sounds like something from Middle English! It's understandable but sounds "old". It has been nearly 1,000 year since the Occupation began and it will take a long time to undo what has been done ... if it can be done!

Along that line, last night I was playing around with words to swap for campdom ... maybe kampdom (military) ranks (GR). I found sundry that could be brooked. I think I will brook them in a sci-fi tale that I have on the back-burner. I'v been needing a way to rank the off-world campdom. I should have written them down because now I'll have to go back thru and find them again! lol ... So the offworlder infaru-fleet (alien invasion fleet) will be using OE and other Germanic words for their ranks.

@porsch ... Just because it's not the way that *I* would write it, does not mean that it is wrong.

But I think that you're trying to find a nook that truly isn't there.

Let's take out the Latinate and put in an Anglo-root word. Oblige in "true" English means to bind.

“No one can oblige you to stay in a job that you hate.”
"No one can bind you to stay in a job that you hate."

There ya go ... it works. So the sentence is correct. The best thing to do is stay away from the Latinate.

I've been down this road so many times that I kept the URLs:

... there is a long history of writers using that as a relative pronoun when writing about people. Chaucer did it, for example.

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/who-versus-that.aspx

That normally refers to things but it may refer to a class or type of person.

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000255.htm

---

If ye want to complain about who/whom ... then let's go back and stop using "you" as the nominative! It was the plural objective! Now it is singular/plural nominative/objective ... So why worry about a little thing like who/whom!