Talk:Main leaf

A discussion or talk leaf (page) on the ins-and-outs of Anglish. Feel free to voice your ideas. But bear in mind, this Anglish project is not an attempt at an alternative, what-if (the Norman conquest and so forth had not happened) language, but simply a clearer, plainer, more Germanic English, making better use of its Germanic roots. :) In effect, if "Anglish" is sucessful, one would never know, by definition (for instance, does one even note "foreword" as being odd or outlandish nowadays? Or indeed, does one think that of the word "preface", the Latinism that was replaced by it?)

= "Unresolved" Issues =

How are we all?
More to the point, who are we all? I noticed, one two or three new contributers, meaning that the original founding fathers have more co-operation on their hands. Are we all of a similar ethos here? I've been a bit un-involved with Anglish recently. Is the overall consensus still that we're after words that seem superficially as if they could be modern English words, and do not use dead morphemes?

Group hug?

Inkstersco 13:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hijack the group, but Anglish is never going to be a bring-back-to-life of Old English, nor is it going to be a constructed "what if the Norman Conquest had never happened" speech. There are other such projects online, and Anglish is not that. Anglish strives to make the most of Germanic English roots. The best formations are those which are usual in Modern English, but inlivening dead words is cool, too. In short, the consensus is the same. I know you want to know most folks intend, but Anglish by its definition is what I said. Anyway who wants a totally pure English, a what if English, or anything like that has coem to the wrong place. BryanAJParry 12:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts On the Main Page
I think the main page ought to be made more bold, with links leading to 3 lists, one containing proper overbringings, one containing encyclopaedic entries, and one to the wordbook. Inkstersco 10:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that is a good thought. The first layout was only a guess as to what may be the most worked upon grounds, but now work is being done, it seems these three (overbrings, wordbook, wisdombook) are the main things. Did you want to make the shift, or did you want me to do it first, and let you give some input afterward? Oswax Scolere 12:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll leave it to you, and then give it the old once over once you're done(you did the original neatly enough). Inkstersco 21:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made some shifts to the headside, but have the feeling this is not what was wanted. Do you think we need something more radical? I think that would be better. (By the way, some of the leaves which were formerly linked to from the headside are now orphaned, I will work to sort them out with new links later.) Oswax Scolere 21:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the layout -- except, as I think you mean to point out, the lists are incomplete. But yep, that's what I had in mind. Maybe when we have enough pages we'll put the lists on seperate pages. Inkstersco 18:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Bravo old chap! She's absolutely splendid! Inkstersco 07:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

preposition + non-prep "compounds"
One thing I noticed in Danish is that preposition + verb combinations tend to work like this: prep. used as a prefix tend to mean the same thing as the verb and then the preposition following, except they are more formal. In english terms this would mean offcut = cut off, except "offcut" is a higher register. I REALLY like this, but with one proviso: this rule does not apply when in English the two forms would mean a different thing (e.g. cut off and offcut are actually two seperate things). Bryan 82.44.212.6 21:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We also run into trouble with Setup and Upset. Inkstersco 21:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, quite right.

-er vs. -ster
In Old English, -ster was the feminine form, and -er was the masculine form. This situation doesn't really hold in Modern English. Funny thing is, tho, whilst both are used productively, I don't really know what the "rule" for one or the other is. Anyone care to discuss? Perhaps we could ressurect -ster as the feminine? A good example, by the way, is "baker" (male) versus "baxter" (female), and "webber" (male) versus "webster" (female). BryanAJParry 12:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone? BryanAJParry 14:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions and Constructive Criticism for Oswax
I have for a wee while half-meant to ask what the rationale behind most of the writs is? Is the format of this site to be an encyclopedia? I always thought that Wiki- did not necessarily mean encyclo-.

Obviously, you are using them to explore different ways of using Anglish, exercising and cultivating the language. Indeed, I had a shot at the same sort of thing with my Wellspring of Breedstocks. However, unless the "face" of the website is to be an encyclopedia, I think the site ought to resemble more a "textbook" on the Anglish language. So, for example, our Technical Words page is good because it resembles the content of a school textbook. Perhaps more could be written on morphological rules, such as establishing a framework for wordbuilding that English doesn't really have, for example, the fact that "a-x" = "x on", "right on" = "aright", which is attested to mean "exact", etc. I think that would be a constructive way to use writs. I think what we have now is a cluster of stump articles that are only interesting because they contain, say, six Anglish words which are in the wordbook anyway. Mightn't it eventually become a distraction from the more thorough, organised pages that summarise the language?

Second point: I understand the jist on how to use the wordbook is to add words and let users pick. However, I think you sometimes go for a wee bit too much ambiguity. I think we should evaluate our options a bit more carefully when assigning words to meanings, making sure we're not just using the same word for a vast array of things. I have in mind the whole maths\logic issue, and in overbringing when you tend to replace specific words with very broad ones. Something being monosyllabic and clear doesn't mean we need to make it more ambiguous.

Inkstersco 21:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think these are truly insightful comments on the nature of the Moot, and worth answering one by one.


 * Firstly, this site is meant to be a gathering place for writing in and about Anglish. So that we can have both texts in Anglish (like overbringings and encyclopedia articles) along with leafs about Anglish such as Technical Words or the English Wordbook. But this is only what I thought would b best at the beginning. The site itself is defined by how you actually use it. It is best that you add whatever you feel is relevant to Anglish, and let others use that resource to develop Anglish further. Overall, the Moot is about sharing our thoughts and work on Anglish, and working to forward it from being just a hobby to a worthwhile study in itself.


 * Next, the writing of a grammar for Anglish is certainly something I would help with. It is without a doubt one of the main building blocks of corpus planning. And, as you say, we already do have some leafs that present information in a way that helps understanding of word formation in Anglish. We could write many more, and a leaf on derivational morphology would be welcome.


 * I accept that currently the encyclopedia part of the Moot is small and undeveloped. But, as with all wikipedias (which this part of the Moot recreates), time will allow the number and quality of the articles to grow. They are worthwhile having for they allow us all to both read and write Anglish in an ordinary and meaningful way. It is only by using Anglish that we become fluent in it, and therefore heighten it from a mere cipher of English to a tongue in itself. We must bear in mind that Anglish is not English, and that we need to do more than simply offer replacement words to slot into English sentences. We need to explore how Anglish itself works, and how it differs from English.


 * It is true that the best policy for the wordbook is to offer as many words as we can, and then let the writer choose. This way a word suitable for the context will be chosen. Some words I (and others) offer therein are only for some meanings or in some constructions. It is upon the writer to know what to choose. I do have a tendency for stretching the meaning of a word somewhat, and maybe sometimes too much, but there is method there.


 * For one, I believe that compounding is the main route through which new words will come into Anglish. But those compounds must form naturally if they are to persist, as artificial words will find no takers. One way of doing this is to offer a verb or noun that broadly covers a concept, but allow individual writers to define or hone that word to a specific meaning. For example, the word 'reckon' can be used to cover a whole range of mathematical and logical concepts, each with the core meaning of 'think through' (or something such like). Thus 'reckon' can cover that core meaning and be used in some piece of writing. But when a more specific meaning is needed, then the writer could say something like 'leadreckon' to mean 'deduce' or 'linkreckon' to mean 'compute'. While we could offer these words straight away, just offering the main verb or noun to cover the broad meaning, can still be very useful and productive.


 * Also, I do not think that we ought to pay too much attention to the way English works when building Anglish. That is to say, English may have many ways or many words for saying something, but are they all needed? Some may be purely historical or marginal, or simply duplicative of other words. Again, 'reckon' could easily cover both 'count' and 'calculate' with no loss of meaning. There is no need for two words in Anglish simply because there is two in English. To follow that path would lead to the creation of an English cipher, which is not our goal.


 * Though I must say at last, I have made up a good few new words, as witnessed by the technical words leaf. I mean to make more in times to come, but I feel I would like to let things come to me and not press for a word I cannot think up.


 * Forgive the great length of my comeback, but I feel that these points are well worth talking over. Oswax Scolere 23:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I note your point anent the encyclo. My suggestion is, that the textbookish pages should maybe be listed in bulk, but apart from the encyclo pages, so that one doesn't need to sift through one to reach the other.


 * Anent the relationship between English and Anglish, I've been in enough "Is Scots a language" debates to know not to dwell too heavily on where different speeches rank. However, I think there is a lot to be said for not treating Anglish as something asunder from English. Reasons are: 1) Anglish will have more power if the words look like natural English coinages, so that they will be eagerly adopted into English. The only realistic way to "launch" Anglish is by letting it seep into English vocabulary. If the Anglish words sound too arcane, culty and inelegant, they will remain forever the whims of a tiny website community. 2) If Anglish is described relative to English, rather than something in its own right, that description will become worthy in more than one way. For example, people -- poets for example -- might simply want a rough guide on how to reduce the Romance in their language, and then are more likely to tell their friends about it, etc. It also becomes educational, informing folks of words like furlough, which one doesn't normally find in a thesaurus. 3) Anglish becomes more memorable and newsworthy if it has a sort of "stunt" value, in that it *looks* like English, *and* is understandable, *and* is elegant, but is in truth manmade. It mustn't look too easy, too Tolkein.


 * Anent compounding, I think that is important but also realise that English is a less synthetic language than French and Latin and so on and so cannot elegantly be taken too far. I think we should not be afraid to have say, three words. The Anglish for Antidisestablishmentarianism should be certainly more than one word, more like the American phrase "seperation of church and state", but of course Anglish-ised.


 * Finally, anent ambiguity, usually there are two words in English because there are two meanings. Sometimes this is not true. I don't know how artificial is nothing less than a perfect synonym for man-made. However, mostly, this is not the case. There should be a different word for Logic than for Mathematics, I think. Surely when we surgically remove the Romance from English, we should fill in the scar tissue with something just as specific, rather than stretch the skin over the wound to breaking point. The latter would be too easy and too crude. E.g. I think is is better to wait until we have something better for "secret" than just "hidden". Inkstersco 09:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comeback, I think that it is a good idea to have a separate listing for textbook or grammar leafs on the headside. I tried to do that by having the category 'words' (a lame name), but it could be renamed and expanded to cover all the grammar of Anglish. I have already added Technical Words to the list there.


 * I understand that to get anywhere, Anglish will have to be 'incorporated' in English, but that does not mean that it need be exactly the same. What I mean to say is that we must allow Anglish to find its own constructions and phrasing, without leaning too heavily on English. But, and this is most important, an English speaker ought to be basically able to understand Anglish, though there is no need that they be 'fooled' by it.


 * I do not understand where you stand on replacement words, you say at one point that we ought to accept several Anglish words for one English word, and elsewhere that we ought to find perfect synonyms. If you mean that sometimes we can have a good match, and yet elsewhere we need to rephrase or elaborate an idea in several words, then I settle with that, and do not see how it is different from what I believe. I think we must take each word as it comes, and understand that different meanings within one English word, may become different Anglish words. 'Secret' here is a case: for though 'hidden' is not a perfect synonym, it does cover a certain meaning of the word.


 * I only mean to stretch words where there is nothing better. But bear in mind that a word that is stretched in meaning will do one of three things: it will either cope with all the meanings and no ambiguity will occur, it could differentiate on its own, like 'safety pin' and 'drawing pin', or it could break, which means that a new word needs to be found. Either way, no big deal.


 * I don't think it is better to bide until something better comes up. When writing articles you see how much we are missing, and to begin plugging those gaps is most pressing. Oswax Scolere 12:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Anglish articles should be of two real kinds: those articles which the writer thinks will properly show off TECHNICAL wordings, and those articles which in some sense have something to do with Anglish. For me, Anglish is a subset of English, and it is also a different thing altogether. It is IMMENSELY useful bcause, as you say Ian, it serves as a tool for those who might wish to explore their own tung (that is, English) further. However, the overuse of non-standard, and maybe even made-up words in Anglish does indeed set it aside from English. BryanAJParry 16:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Bugs
I keep getting bugs no matter which browser I use. For instance, I keep having this bug where even tho I press submit, and not preview, it previews it. BryanAJParry 21:10, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I can't help you, for it works fine with me. I can only suggest that you report it to technical support at Wikicities. Oswax Scolere 19:33, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Technical Terms
I think the key is to add articles on technical things. However, before we do this, we need to coem up with good names for technical issues. For instance, what is the difference beteen phonology and phonetics, or phones, allophones, or phonemes, or between pragmatics and semantics (asf.) IN ANGLISH? Should we brain storm some techncial names here? And when we coem up with satisfying one, then go on to write the articles?

Some suggestions:

phonology: "speechlore" phonetics: ''soundlore" morphology: "wordbitlore" syntax: "wordorderlore" phoneme: "mindsound" phone: "realsound", "deepsound" allophone: "twinsound", "sibsound", "likeunlikesound"


 * I agree that we need to brainstorm some new words, and I think a good thing would be to make a new leaf for that to happen on. The only suggestion I have at now, is that 'linguistics' becomes 'speechlore'. Oswax Scolere 19:56, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I reallyl iked your idea, btw, of "rhetoric" being "speechcraft". I think the meaning of rhetoric is fairly well captured (no mean feat). BryanAJParry 20:00, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! 'Speechcraft' also covers 'oratory', which I believe can be melded with 'rhetoric' with little worry. Oswax Scolere 20:30, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there ought to be a rigid 1-1 relationship between English and Anglish technical terms. BTW, The Anglish for for rhetoric is Claptrap. Inkstersco 9 Jan 06


 * It is!?!? I think that is A term we could use, yes. BryanAJParry 11:42, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * Elocution = Speechcraft, Acoustics = Soundlore, Rhetoric = Claptrap -- What think we? 146.176.60.14 10:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I greatly prefer "speechcraft" to "claptrap", for the latter has really bad connotations (??side-meanings??]. That kind of judgement towards a thing is not fittign for academia. Your suggestions for acoustics and elocution are quite good, but we must bear in mind the big picture. The big picture in this case is.... how do we refer to phonology/phonetics/phonemics asf. if we were to name elocution and acoustics as you say? I would prefer something like goodspeechcraft, or wellspeakcraft for elocution. Not sure about acoustics. BryanAJParry 18:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Bringing Back to Life "Dead" Words
Do we have a policy on this? We seem to be doing it all the time. I was thinking anything in literature, particularly written in the standard dialect, from after the great vowel shift should, by definition, be considered acceptable ot revive. Anyone else got any thoughts on this? BryanAJParry 15:32, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone? To elaborate on the above, words from before, say 1500ish, which still make sense nowadays, or could- e.g. "wordfast" for "true to one's word"- should be enlivened, but those not attested since about 1500ish which do not make sense in and of themselves should perhaps be abandoned. No? BryanAJParry 14:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Talking anent everything on the headside

 * I'm not disagreeing with anything written here in as such, but I think that these dicussion would be better had at the talk page of the respective letter. Oswax Scolere 14:37, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, I think that general discussion anent Anglish ought to be on the talk leaf of Anglish, or, if the subject is important enough, be taken to a leaf of its own. We ought to keep this leaf for only talk anent the headside. Oswax Scolere 16:36, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * I kinda think we should keep it al in one place. Just my feeling BryanAJParry 22:48, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * My worry is that this leaf will become to long and unwieldy, and it will become hard to find what you want. Oswax Scolere 23:12, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * A fair worry. But I'ld rather cross that bridge when we come to it. Also, if necessary, we can always moove some things from here to the relevant talk page (that is, as I say, this one gets too full up). BryanAJParry 01:01, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * This leaf is already 30kb, the larger it gets the longer it will take to load and harder it will be to find what thou wishes to talk anent. Please, let us talk on a subject at the right talk page. It is easy enough to use a watchlist or recent changes to find any discussion. Oswax Scolere 17:02, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * I have started commenting on the relevant pages, but no one seems ot respond there. Also see I edited this page to make it resolved and unresolved issues. BryanAJParry 11:31, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

The tragedie of the loss of good words
Some words, such as "branch", have good value in metaphore.

It's all very well to say the evolutionary tree "forks" out, but that doesn't conjure images of it happening again and again and again.

The things that are naughty about Romance words that means we want to get rid of them, are simply not true of all Romance words.

Therefore, I think we should either invent a word, think of a strikingly good synonym, or stay quiet on that particular word until we feel we can do these two thing.

~Inkstersco 30 Dec


 * I think we are always gonna have trubble justifying this thing on a purely LINGUISTIC level. I mean, okay, we could to a small degree. For instance, why should the adjectival forms of bodyparts take a Latin or Greek root when the noun forms don't? (Lung/pulmon(ic, ary), kidney/renal, mouth/oral, eye/ocular)? Same with animals. And what about words whose roots do not exist (independently) in English, and which could be repalced by a word of equal meaning who roots do exist in English. Loads of words fit this last category, of course, particularly slightly technical words. Parts of speech, sciences, longer words. But where is the justiication in replacing perfectly understood words like "animal/creature" with "wight", "energy" with "sprack" blahblahblah... you get the idea, most of the wors we have.

Regarding animals as well as body parts, I see your point. Why have adjectives which refer to animals but sound nothing like their noun forms? Up until a few days ago, I couldn't have told you what 'Vulpine' meant. But if the word 'Foxlike' is used instead, the meaning is a lot clearer. The same with daft words like 'Bovine' 'Lupine' and so on, instead of 'Cowlike' or 'Wolflike'. Hereward. 83.100.224.201 13:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have found my ideas on this topic find better favour when I don't assert (or seem to imply) that English as it is is wrong (and that users of it, likewise, are bad), but that, partly for linguistic reasons, but mostly for reasons of taste, style, patriotism (asf.) English COULD work if it were more Germanic. If anyone wants to write an essay on the linguistic (or other) case for Anglish, I guess it would be appropriate to add it to the wiki. :) BryanAJParry 11:43, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

On the Moot in General
Is it really wise to start new articles simply because the article title is an Englandish word? Wouldn't it be far better to write articles (on whatever) but make them in Anglish? BryanAJParry 15:29, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Yah. ~Inkstersco Dec 30
 * I don't understand what your getting at. Do you mean that we ought to write articles on stonelore, but call them 'geology'? Or rather that we ought to write an article first and then slot it in somewhere?


 * If you mean the first, then no. But I can understand the second, and certainly stubs can look ugly, but that is no reason not to make them. Make a hundred now, or a thousand! This is how wikis grow, and I think that an Anglish Wikipedia ought to be one of our aims, for not only will it give us a chance to practise our Anglish, but it will become a great resource in the Anglish tongue.


 * Forgive me if I have wholly misunderstood what thou meant. Oswax Scolere 16:57, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

On the Wordbook in General
There is a probable cross-section of readers who would like to use the Anglo-Saxon as much as possible without crossing the line into the world of neologisms. It is for this reason that I suggest a simple indicator on whether the word is established(e.g. waylay), half-established(e.g. fewfold), or coined (e.g. withreckoner), and perhaps whether it is dialectal. If it is established, they can check a dictionary to help them decide.

The Anglish wordbook has all the potential of a sort of contrained thesaurus, but would repel some readers who see it as a Roald-Dahlish exercise of word inventing. Consider that I don't think anyone has ever published a Romance to A-S thesaurus before, so I think a large niche would be filled if we could somehow isolate that capacity from the larger con-lang, by means of simple annotation. ~Inkstersco, 26 Dec 05


 * I agree. If wikicities supports colour, I would suggest no colour (that is, black) for the established words (that is, ones in the OED, collins and dictionary.com, for instance), red for new words, and green for archaic, literary, or dialect words. BryanAJParry 12:01, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * How about a class for unestablished words that are implicit in established words, such as "fewfold" as an opposite of "manifold", "yaysay" as an opposite of "naysayer", and anything-goes morphologies like "Lifewise"?


 * Where Anglish falls short as a language it can be a very nice thesaurus-like tool ~Inkstersco, 27 Dec


 * Okay, how about black for normal, everyday English words, blue for archaic or dialectal words, green for implied words (e.g. yaysay), and red for totally made-up words . By the way, I have written the foregoing sentences in different colours NOT because I think you two are too thick to know what "green", "red" and "blue" mean (:D), but because I want to demonstrate how to actually make words different colours. BryanAJParry 21:04, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest, if we agree on the colours, that one of us goes thru "A" (because I think it has the most words so far) and edits it according to this colour scheme. Then we can all look at it and see what we think. If we like it, we can go thru the entire wiki letter-by-letter, changing it. :) BryanAJParry 21:13, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

So, who wants to go thru each page and add a note in the talk page saying how many words there are for that letter? Of course, for that to be of any worth, we would have to update the number whenever we added a word. Well, I could just count the words myself... :O BryanAJParry 01:13, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Nah -- If we get curious about exactly how many word there are we can just copy and paste them into a WP and then do a line count. It won't matter very often. In truth, I think we may as well just have one page for all the words, albeit divided by neat headers. Even if we had 10 000 words, it wouldn't be that bad. This way if, like me, you come up with ten words at once, you don't have to flit between the pages, and can add them all in a single edit. Flicking between letters is tedious(sorry, tiresome). ~Inkstersco 30 Dec


 * I prefer the seperate letters. BryanAJParry 13:22, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * On another tact, we currently have 586 Englandish words rendered into English. Aha! BryanAJParry 15:41, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

What about wordbook entries policy? We all seem to have an unspoken policy, but I want to speak just so I know we are reading from the same hymn sheet, and so that we can put it in writing for any newcomers. The policy is that we only add the derived words where there is something unusual or unexpected, or we need to spell things out for random perusers. For instance, I listed "ruth" just now for "compassion", but I also listed "ruthful" with "compassionate". Why? Because, whilst folk might extract ruth from ruthless, they might not make the leap to "ruthful", and I wished to spell it out, as it were. 82.44.212.6 22:59, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

One v. Man
Likewise and kin to the above issue, we have that of the indefinite kind of pronoun. The use of "one", instead of "man", is brought from forran influence. If one is to exclude the lack of thou/thee aso. on the basis that this is originally forran, then are we to say that "one" is no longer acceptable because it too displaced "man" (even tho "one" is a perfectly homeborn word). -Bryan


 * I do not know the history of that pronoun, but will look it up to see. Again, without a set ideology, we simply must muddle through. I have a fairly tight policy on which words I let in, but when needs must, I compromise, I'm not too dogmatic about it. Anyone can set their own limits for inclusion or exclusion of words and apply that to their work. Anglish is a cover term for everyone who wishes to speak English with less foreign influence, whether that be much less or a little less. Oswax Scolere 13:27, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, there is another alternative, and that is to say "you", as most English and Scots speakers do. :)


 * Note that the traditional "ye" is still in use in Scotland(not simply a modern corruption of "you"), and "youse" is standard enough to be spelt with an E (naturalised into extraphonetic orthographical standards). ~Inkstersco, 25 Dec

On rationale
Eew, sorry about the word. Anyway, I've been asked by Oswax to drop a few words about myself and my viewpoint. Basically, I think an actual what-if is futile; I'm not into fantasy games. Language is like weather. Remember also that even if the Norman invasion hadn't happened, we'd still have Resaissance-gained words and scientific words, not to mention pure Latin interjections and biological Latin. However, I think the true thrill of reading Anglish shouldn't be "cute, these are all Germanic", but instead should be "wow, this actually sounds very familiar, but there's no -ation or re- and all that stuff I've been taught is so special", as if they've heard it in another life. "Thee" and "thou" create the false impression that Anglish is a nostalgic language. I wish they hadn't gone, but there's a strange stigma attached to using them. I think Anglish is more of a con-dialect in that people can speak it to varying degrees of thickness against a backdrop of Standard English. If it has any real-world influence, it'll be in bringing the more bottom-drawer English words to the surface. The exciting diversity of modern English is something that is much overlooked nowadays.

I think a word in Anglish should be 1) Preferably attested even if it's obscure and dialectal. If not attested, very easily attestable. For example, we say "wear out" for erode, so an English teacher would not criticise "outwear" 2) Natural sounding, so that one cannot tell the real from the constructed. 3) Unforeign -- That also goes for stuff like Uber, which is worse than Super IMO. 4) Brief -- Let's not try and be too clever and tack equivilents of Re- onto words. Let's just put "again" before the word.

I suggest plunging the depths of our island's dialects(are we all British here?) for hidden treasures. I would *not* like to see English look more Germany-ish, and think Uber is as bad as Super, nor would I like to see too much loyalty to morpheme calquing, for that can be clumsy.

I think the best possible approach in creating words is _not_ to calque morphemes, but to calque definitions. Keep it short. Let's just convert re- into "again" as a seperate word. Instead of a pedantic Life-lore-ish for Bio-logic-al, let's have Lifewise, and then Lifelore for Biology. Isn't the ultimate aim to make English more like English? If this is the case, it shouldn't have quite the same long-winded methodology as German.

Anyway I'm rambling unforgivably. Note that I'm Scottish and so am a hidden tresure chest of obscure dialectal words which could be brought to the surface.

~Iain Dec 22nd


 * I can agree with not calqueing words straight from the Latin or Greek, for so many new words I have seen do just this, but fail to make a worthy or even understandable word. One example is the word 'understandable' itself. Some folk have given it as 'understandcan' which is truly awful to my ears. In truth, I do not think we have a word for the '-able' suffix, and must live with saying 'can understand'. Overbringing is never exact between 'true' tongues, and it need not be between English and Anglish.


 * Although, having said this, I do think that a set of prefixs and suffix is useful for Anglish to grow the wordhoard swiftly. The ones I like are '-lore' to show a science, which lets us make hundreds of words straight away. Also, '-lust', '-hate', '-fear', '-worship' and '-craft' can be wirtten like this. Oswax Scolere 16:00, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * More-or-less agree with both of you. Altho we are always gonna disagree on the details, right? I think you two are slightly more "extreme" (not the best word, but can't think of another; you get what I mean, tho; and only SLIGHTLY) than me, but I think our views are still fairly close together (so as to make this thing work; for instance, none of us think English should be more GERMAN-looking). I take real issue with some of the words in the wordbook. But as I say, this will always be so; I think we should definitely clearly explain to outsiders or newcomers that a degree of tolerance (tholing?) is allowable (no, not "letsome" :P ;) ) in terms of the words used, as none of us are gonna agree TOTALLY on the details. I particularly agree with you, Ian, on the issue of "thou/"thee"; great pronouns, but the use of such pronouns makes us look cranky, to my mind. And this is what I meant before, Joe; surely we are not trying to make a "make if" language, and therefore "thou/thee/ye/you" paradigm is not good as it seems ot be stepping into that territory. My personal hope for "Anglish" is jsut everyday usage; if we can get people THINKING English again thru sprinkling our own speech which Anglish formations, and by thoughtful selection of our wording, we may be on to a winner. BryanAJParry 01:06, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * We can, and will, shift the 'thou/thee' back to 'you', give a little time to do them all thought. Oswax Scolere 14:36, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that using 'can' as a suffix instead of 'able' can sound a bit clumsy. So I was wondering if it would still be ok to use 'able' as a suffix until at least a better one is thought of. Surely it is better to have a hybrid word with able on the end rather than a wholly romance word, for example using hearable rather than audible. Does anyone else have any thoughts about that? Hereward 16:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I, personally, have no issue with "able" at all. I think it is wholly naturalised. And even tho the ible/able suffix isn't related to "able", believe it or not, in the minds of folk it is. In any case, I think able and -able are fine. Oswax and Ian, I do think, have an issue with the word "able". In short, the current situation is kind of a fudge, where we don't mention able, but kind of secretly recognise that we need it. In short, I don't think there is a solution. Feel free to post about it on the email group, too :D Bryan 82.44.212.6 19:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that we do have a perfectly good alternative for '-able', and that is simply to recast the sentence. Why can't 'the sound was barely audible' become 'the sound could barely be heard'? Using a construction with 'can' works well enough for most (if not all) words ending in '-able'. Oswax Scolere 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That solution does of course limit your stylistic variation somewhat considerably. Bryan 82.44.212.6 09:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

On special words
Words like Catholic, cent, boomerang, kimono, nam-myoho-renge-kyo, Loch, zebra, ought to remain roughly as they are, wouldn't you agree? They are all specific to particular cultures, environments and cliques, and the way they name their jargon is part of the general aethetic presence of their environment, which I think we probably ought to respect. -- Inkstersco 24, DEC, 05


 * I don't think anyone debates this, Ian. :) BryanAJParry 00:56, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * Au contraire, I think Oswax was interested in renaming Cent and Catholic(according to the wordbook), which seems a bit overboard to me, way beyond Hastingsless English. Currencies and religions are generally named by the organisations responsible, at least in part. ~Inkstersco Dec 25


 * The words 'catholic' and 'cent' are in the wordbook only for the most general meanings. Indeed, the word 'catholic' is an adjective in the wordbook, and not a noun. This means that there would yet be 'a Catholic church' but no longer 'a catholic church'. If you see the difference. Oswax Scolere 19:39, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

"Headside"
It's okay, and it is obviously modelled on other Germanic language wikipedias. However, if we look at the other Germanic language wikis, and then actually look up what the words mean, we see they translate as "page" not "side". German Hauptseite, DutchHoofdpagina, Swedish Huvudsida, Danish Forside. I suggest "fore" or "head" plus "leaf". :) Bryan BryanAJParry 10:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

= "Resolved" Issues =

THOU/THEE/YE/YOU
Oswax, I don't really see the need to write everything all "thou/thee". Those pronouns dropped out of use LONG after the Norman conquest and, like the dual pronouns, likely would have no matter what. -Bryan


 * I can't settle with that, for the habit of calling someone by the plural was borrowed from French (see thou for more info). We need to talk anent this further to come to some kind of settling whether it ought to be in Anglish or not. Oswax Scolere 18:51, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * Are we now to be excluding EVERYTHING that is of non-Germanic influence? That is certainly not what I thought we had agreed to ;) Do we now outcast all words of non-Germanic origin, and all words which have been influenced by non-Germanic languages (e.g. "tongue" with the meaning of "language"; a Latin influence). That is plainly absurd. Perhaps contentious areas should be left in limbo til we have drawn up some kind of acceptable Anglish rule/check list. By the way, I like "thou", "thee", "you" and "ye", but I just don't think it is prudent to exclude ALL things in our **tongue** which have the hint of forran influence. It's mad. Remember, the history of the English language IS one of forran influence. That fact just cannot be gotten away from. So we must decide whether we are trying to construct some "what if..." language that might have come about had not the Norman conquest (and so on) happened, or are we just trying to make English Englisher. -Bryan


 * I should clearen: I am not saying thou/thee/ye/you is not acceptable. What I am saying is that are we, on one hand, trying to make the most of the Germanic part of the England tung (e.g. formations such as "filmhouse", "forelast", "weaponhoard"), or are we trying to make a language that MIGHT have been had it not been for the course history has taken. The latter of these two is distinctly not what we are trying to do. Therefore certain things (such as the ressurection of thou/thee) is perhaps of little worth. - Bryan


 * We do need to clarify exactly what our goal is for Anglish. I hope we can come to an agreement on it. What I want is not to take out every word of non-Germanic birth, but rather to undo, as far as we can, the influence of history on English. What I mean, is that for many years the majority of speakers of English did not control their tongue, but rather others did, others who preferred French or Latin or whatever.


 * We need to think what would have happened had the everyday English speaker held on to control of their tongue. To do that we must think of which outside influence was brought in against our wishes, and which influence came in naturally, as part of normal language change. I would like to keep thou/thee as I feel it is a French influence propagated by the upper classes, but the loss of verb conjugations '-est' and '-eth' was spread by a normal process.


 * Certainly, strengthening the wordhoard that English has left is the first and main goal of Anglish, but surely when we do so, it means that a foreign word is pushed out? We cannot raise up the word 'playhouse' without killing the word 'theatre', can we? I think our disagreement is rather of extent, but even then, we only need to settle on which words we can, and then call that 'Anglish'. I would like to think we could hold all views on different kinds of Anglish.


 * By the way, if you have an account, I will make you an admin straight away as agreed. Oswax Scolere 23:23, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, but how can you get rid of the -est, -eth stuff when you are merely guessing that they would have dropped out? More to the point, who would find acceptable an English with thou and thee in it? We can hold different views on Anglish, sure. But if we are to have an online project like this, then we must come to a conclusion on which kind of Anglish is to be shown-off. In short, keep the thou/thee thing, but don't expect me to start using thou and thee in my writings. :D -Bryan


 * I know they would have dropped off for they did! The current verb conjugations were not influenced from France, but rather northern English. The southern forms began to be dropped in the 1400s, the current forms we have were standard in northern England, from many years ago. I think they have something to do with the Danes. Overall, the process of inflectional simplification was underway by the end of the Old English period, with the extant Late West Saxon texts preserving a far older tongue than what was common.


 * It is alright if you do not wish to use thou/thee, there is no compulsion to do so, but I wish to. I understand that we will have to choose whether or not to use them on the interface, but if we wait until we have a few more members, then we can vote on it. We can take them off if everyone agrees. Oswax Scolere 13:27, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * It is funny you should mention that English was never control by the common people, but by the educated elite who preferred to use French and Latin. I am trying to Anglish an essay written by an American who says more or less the same thing. It states that English, as well as the other Germanic languages outside of Scandinavia, was thoroughly suppressed throughout the Middle Ages and probably would have died completely were it not for the Hundred Years War which effectively severed French influence from England. Maybe what we are doing here could be seen as a way of bringing English back to its full health.

Hi everyone! I'm a bit new to this Anglish project, but I like it very much! I'm very much in favour for the use of "thou/thee/thy/thine", and I'd just like to remind that "Thou" has not died completely in England (preserved in the southern Yorkshire dialect), so basically "Thou" can't be revived, since it hasn't been extinct in the first place. Regards, Padraig 14.06.2006.


 * The issue of thou vs. you is not an issue of Romance vs. Saxon, and so we decided to ditch that idea. Besides, it gave the false impression that Anglish was about making English look archaic. However much one uses Thou in English is how much one ought to use it in Anglish. So yes, we can use Thou, but not if we wouldn't normally -- and normally, I don't think most of us would. ~Inkstersco

On "-able"
My suggestion with dealing with the apparent lack of equivilent of "-able" in the Anglo-Saxon tier, is to

1) Describe the state of something being able to to do something with -some : Bothersome

2) Describe the state of something being able to have something done to it with   be-...-some : Beliftsome

Inkstersco, 24 Dec 05


 * Yes, I agree with this. But I think -able is on of those naturalised suffixes (probably aided by its connection with "able") BryanAJParry 00:56, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Acceptable use of Latin
I think in humour it is very funny (ergo, and so on). It has a real job there. Also, what about in certain technical fields? I don't, for instance, have a problem with those genus names, like catus catus and all that. Ideas, thoughts? BryanAJParry 01:24, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * Merry Christtide!


 * If Velociraptor was Speedy Snatcher(the calque), that would "clutter" the language with ambiguity, don't you think? Are we talking about an animal or some sinister person? The drift between monosyllabic Saxon and long Latinate words in a single sentence is used by Shakespeare quite a lot; It is functional. It's like Burns switching between Scots dialect and very standard English in his works; The contrast is part of the language. The benefit of Latinate words is that they lack connotation and vividness, and so can be used for very dispassionate matters, such as the scientific and legal.


 * However, I think one point of Anglish could be to provide an extreme, that people can use to whatever extent. We can use Anglish to make Romance an option rather than a necessity. ~ Inkstersco, 25 Dec 05


 * Also, I think that most words that were in Old English, particularly before about 1000ad, whatever their birth., should be allowable as English. I mean, if they shouldn't, then why should words like street or pound be acceptable either? And blatantly they should. BryanAJParry 22:59, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Outlandish Wordbooks
This may be a stupid question, but why oh why have we go the beginnings of a French wordbook? BryanAJParry 17:55, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * For we need it to do overbringings. I can read a little French, and so I am slowly building a French wordbook to help me. It is better for us to do overbringings from a tongue like French or Latin or German, rather than straight from English, so that we do not get 'interference' from today's English. Also, the English wordbook only holds word for the Anglish word is otherly. In the French, or whatever, wordbook we can have every word, from 'I' and 'and' onwards.


 * If thou can speak another tongue it would be good to make a wordbook for that tongue here and publish any overbringings thou might have. Otherwise, doing an overbringing from English would be good. Oswax Scolere 20:16, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it's your call, Joe. I like French, but I don't speak it and so won't be adding to it at all. I'll focus on updatign the English workbook and maybe adding to the articles. :) BryanAJParry 21:34, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * It's our call. But it is cool if you don't wish to add anything. BTW look at your email. Oswax Scolere 21:42, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's just define Anglish relative to English and then let French-to-English knowhow handle the rest of the problem. Thankfully, we know how to translate French to Anglish inasmuch as we can translate it into English. It's a big enough task creating a big enough Anglish vocabulary to be comfortably useable. Anglish is a kind of English dialect, and so the French wordbook is no way to run a railroad. There's nothing at all wrong with what you're doing, but the French stuff looks a bit of a distraction to me. There are many Scots dictionaries, but you'll never(easily) find a French to Scots dictionary for a very similar reason. Once you can translate Standard English to Scots, the rest pretty much falls into place. ~Inkstersco, 27 Dec

ALERT: THE MOOT IS GOING WRONG: IMPORTANT
Okay, I just went to add some stuff to "P" in the wordbook, and the page came up as a bunch of code. And a bunch of the other letters just link you to the wrong page. What the HELL is going on here!?!? BryanAJParry 13:51, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * No apparent problem at my end -- check your email. ~Inkstersco 29 Dec


 * Cheers for the emails, Ian, Joe. But for some reason it is still effed for me. In Firefox. But not in Internet Explorer. Hmmm. Weird, cos it WAS workign in FF til now. Well, whato. Do you two use IE? This is obviously a bug we need to get onto tech support with, init :) BryanAJParry 23:36, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * I use Opera and IE. ~Inkstersco 30 Dec


 * I use both Firefox and IE. I haven't seen any problems in either. Oswax Scolere 16:21, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Don't neglect the obvious
I think we should forgo the slight obsession we seem to have with synonyms all being one word. I noticed that the entry for Advance was Forward(which is fine), but didn't even include the perfectly obvious "move on", which is probably actually a perfect synonym. Sometimes we try too hard. That's why nobody thought of Speed Up and Slow Down for Accelerate and Decelerate. ~Inkstersco 29 Dec


 * Actually, I did think of em. Just didn't add em yet :D I agree, Ian; and if you look at the words I have added, most of them actually AREN'T neologisms. Mankind, world, the lord's prayer and co are all words which I have added. :) Yes, best policy is to list the sundry "synonyms" for each word. BryanAJParry 23:34, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, I am going about editting entries so that the most obvious word is first. For, at the moment, we seem to have the crazier words first, and the more established words later. BryanAJParry 23:58, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I was just about to suggest that :) ~Inkstersco 30, Dec

Words Whose Pronounciation Was Altered By Forran Influence
How are these to be dealt with, d'ya think? I am thinking specifically of "righteous". This WAS "rightwise", but the pronounciation and spelling was influenced by the forran "-eous" ending. I am in favour of keeping it "righteous", but what do you say, Oswax? BryanAJParry 18:57, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * For me, it hinges on the word. 'Rightwise' is, I think, alright as a word for it can be understood without foreknowledge. But other words may be otherwise, and I will take them one at a time. Oswax Scolere 19:14, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be a dead topic for the minnit. Mooving it to "resolved" for the sake of less clutter. :) BryanAJParry 15:34, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Words of Outlandish but Germanic origin
Just wondering what the moot's policy is regarding words which are not native but were borrowed from other Germanic sources relatively late as well. One example I can use is the word 'Switch'. This word could be used as a synonym for 'Substitution' and 'Replacement' but looking at Etymonline it states that 'Switch' was borrowed from a Low German source around about 1592. Are such words still acceptable? My opinion is although still outlandish in origin, such words appear less outlandish than maybe Greco-Latin words as they are from kindred tongues. Wondering what everyone else thinks about this. Hereward 09:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, let me say that we ought talk anent this on the mailing list rather than the Headside's talk leaf.


 * But, seen as you asked, it leans on how you see Anglish. I see it as outtaking all the words which were forced upon English speakers by the ruling classes through the ages, especially where there was disdain for English and a preference for 'learned' French, Latin or Greek. With this view, most German words were simply common borrowings through contact, not impositions from above.


 * On the issue of 'switch', it seems a perfectly good word for 'substitution' or 'replacement'. I personally use 'swap' for those words. Oswax Scolere 10:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I would like to talk on the mail list, but my messages keep coming back to me for some reason. I will try to contact someone on Wikia to see if there is a problem. Hereward 10:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you subscribed to the list? I don't know if your email address is on the list, but I can check. If not, do subscribe, for that may make a difference. Otherwise, try responding to one of the messages sent to you. Oswax Scolere 11:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah I have received an email saying welcome to the mail list. My email address is thebolt@thebolt.karoo.co.uk. Its probably a technical hitch of some kind.Hereward 12:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

=Wordbook Entries Discussion: Link= http://anglish.wikicities.com/wiki/Talk:How_do_I_say%3F

=Technical Words Discussion Link= http://anglish.wikicities.com/wiki/Talk:Technical_Words