@Jayles ... It would make a much more entertaining story! But alas, while I do write fiction, sometimes one must just put the dry facts out there.

@yarpdigger ... You can ask Ængelfolc since he is German. But as an English speaker who also knows German, I think both would have an equally hard time. Now if you had said Icelanders, I might have agreed with you. About the time of the Norman Invasion in 1066, the Scandinavian tongues were still mutually understandable ... Likely similar to UK, US, and Aussie ... and Indian ... and black English. I happened across an Icelandic website the other day and found that I could actually understand bits of it. As my knowledge of OE grows, I bet that my understanding of Icelandic will grow a bit too ... without trying. When I get stuck for a word, Icelandic is now the first tongue that I look at.

The thing about Anglish isn't to turn back to OE ... especially not to the grammar frame! For those of us who love words, it's fun. However,there is an earnest side. English has been and still is today discriminated against ... without thought ... by its own speakers. Many good and "fornytlic" (very useful) Anglo-Saxon words were pushed out by not only a snobbish, elitist French-speaking nobility, but those English speakers who, even to this day, treat English as a third-class tongue behind French and Latin ... Maybe fourth-class if you put Greek ahead of English as many did and still do.

An example ... In 1600, William Gilbert, an Englishman struck the word electricity. He knew of about amber. Rather than going to the Anglo-Saxon (OE) word, stær, he when to Latin. Amber in Latin is electrum (from Greek, ήλεκτρο (ilektro)) and then made a Latin word electricus ... badda boom! To be fair to him, scientific texts were usually written in Latin, he probably knew the Latin word or had a Latin wordbook, and it was unlikely that he knew of the OE word. Which highlights the how lowly English was treated.

This comment is already too long but I hope you get the idea. I think I need to write another blog! ... But not tonight.

I put to you to try spending a day in your net cruising to brook (use) as few Latinates as you can ... You'll find it hard.

@Jayles ... The world input could double up as suggestion. I have a suggestion becomes I have input. The word is already used and fits. I suggest could be "I put in" or "I put forth". Works for me ...

I did another blog ... "Anglo-Saxon" names for the Modern Military" http://lupussolus.typepad.com/blog/2011/08/anglo-saxon-names-for-the-modern-military.html

For the noun suggestion, there is also tyhting - Persuasion, exhortation, encouragement, incitement, instigation, allurement, suggestion. I'm not sure that calquing German works for this. My "foreslam" or "forslap" ... I guess if I said it enuff times, it might start to make sense. I like forelay ... to lay it out ... or foreput.

Forerim doesn't tell me anything. Foretell is already being used. Foresay would be my next choice. Maybe foretale or foresaga. But prolog is Greek, so I don't have a heartache with that. If I were going to change it, I'd just use the whole Greek word - prologos.

I'm looking for a simple, short replacement for "quote".

I've just spent a great deal of time trying to come up with something for "suggestion" ... All the choices seem to be Latinates. All the Germanic languages seem to be a variation of forschlagen so Jayles' idea of "forelay" ... I'm guessing from "lay forth" or "put forth" looks good.

OE has a matching meaning for the original meaning of suggestion: "a prompting to evil" and that is "mislar" (Incitement to evil, suggestion, bad teaching). Gespan - prompting; tyhting seems likely.

But I'm open to ... suggestions ...

@Goofy ... The "me" is very relevant!

Look at this way:

My car proves that I am a fast driver.
Me car proves that I am a fast driver.
Obviously "my" is correct.

My driving proves that I am a fast driver.
Me driving proves that I am a fast driver.
Obviously "my" is correct.

Driving a car proves that I'm not blind. (Without either the me or my.)

But any way you look at it, "me" is not correct.

@Jayles ... Here's one for ya.

From a comment on another board: http://realgrammar.posterous.com/subjunctive-JIlhA

The authors of the ‘The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language’ distinguish three types of mandative:

the subjunctive mandative,
the ‘should’ mandative
the covert mandtive.

The examples they give, in order, are:
‘It is essential that he be told immediately’,
‘It is essential that he should be told immediately’
‘It is essential that he is told immediately’.

They comment that the second is more common in British English than in American English.

Crucially, they say ‘they are all similar in meaning to "He must be told immediately." In other words, they do not distinguish, as you do, An Wulf, between a subjunctive order and a non-subjunctive recommendation.

My own view on that is that the force of the mandative depends on the meaning of the verb in the main clause rather than the mood of the verb in the subordinate clause.

My reply:

True that the idea will be conveyed with any of them. But to nit-pick:

‘It is essential that he be told immediately’ - If you said this to me, then I would think that you're giving me your opinion that it is essential but the final decision is mine. Thus the subjunctive.

‘It is essential that he should be told immediately’ - To me this is very awkward ... actually almost contradictory. The "should" really softens it up ... almost to the point that it isn't "essential". It's not likely that I would ever say it this way. In fact, if I were editing somebody's writing, I'd cross the should out.

‘It is essential that he is told immediately’ - With this one, you're telling me that it must be done (essential) and done now. The choice or decision to tell him isn't mine.

@Jayles, it all depends on the situation and the times frame. But there's not much of a difference to argue about.

If you want to split hairs on "a" ... I might say that the use of will instead of shall is emphatic. I was taught I shall, you will, he will, we shall, you will, they will and to reverse them for emphasis but maybe that is old school.

Otherwise, "a" and "c" are synonymous with a possible nuance to the time frame. "A" is definitely future tense with a slight nod towards a longer time period ... but could be anywhere from a few second from now to any point in the future: I'll come with you with you (at some undefined point in the future), just tell me when you're ready. Or I'll come with you tomorrow.

"C" is nearer in the time frame: I'm going to come with you when if you're leaving in the next hour.

Without a time reference "c" means right now. Wait a moment, I'm coming with you. But you could put a time reference on it and make it future tense, I'm coming with you tomorrow.

So they could pretty much be mixed and match if said correctly.

@Brock ... How would you even write that with a semicolon? No semicolon, colon, or comma needed in this example.

The only thing missing hasn't anything to do with layout of the sentence but some units would be nice ... 18 gal? 200 L?

I will awaken at 6 in the morning.
I will asleepen at 10 at night.

Sounds good to me!

It's just requickening the OE verb onslæpen. It's common for the "on" prefix to change to the "a" prefex. Works for me!