Talk:English Wordbook/C

Funny tale: I used "ongo" last year in an essay. I meant it to mean "continue"; ya know, on the basis that "continuous" and "ongoing" mean the same thing. My lecturer underlined the word but commended me on creative use of language. Heh. BryanAJParry 22:40, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Good for you! A word here and a word there is the most likely way that Anglish will get spread. If someone complains, or raises the point, I'ld simply say 'what did you think it meant?' Many times they can guess its meaning easier than a Romance word they've never heard. Oswax Scolere 23:10, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Altho I think I did tell you of another time when I was thoroly admonished by a teacher for using "forelast" (penultimate in Englandish). She knew what I meant, tho. She said not to make up words. Use penultimate. But if I must, use "the last but one". Well, I still use forelast. What can I say? Old Habits die hard. BryanAJParry 23:50, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't kidnap refer specifically to the nabbing of children, not just capturing generally. I mean, you can't kidnap a man, right? BryanAJParry 15:09, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess you're being humorous; I think everyone agrees an adult can be kidnapped -- That's certainly how it's used in the media. It just so happens that kids are easy to kidnap, hence it's factoring into the word(I guess). ~Inkstersco Jan 8 06
 * Actually I wasn't, but I think I musta been out of it. I agree with you. 82.44.212.6 18:27, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Also, not all creams are salves. Should we make a note of that? I ask, as I have listed "salve" elsewhere for "ointment" (which I think fits the meaning better). BryanAJParry 15:11, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but in some meanings the two words do match, and I think we ought to bear that in mind for all words. If we were simply to swap one word for another without thinking anent the setting of the word, then the overbringings would make little sense. We always must bear in mind which particulat meaning we have. Oswax Scolere 20:39, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair dos, but we really ought to make that clear to newcomers, if you ask me. BryanAJParry 20:49, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

computer, electric n manchester, thundermighty manchester : I cannot for the life of me even begin to fathom this word. I guess it is one of yours, Ian; care to explain it, cos I am puzzled. :) 82.44.212.6 18:27, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * The Manchester is one of the earliest names for the electric computer -- The basic layout of processor, memory and fetch & execute cycle that we use today was forewrought at Manchester university in the 1940s in the aftermath of the golden age of codebreaking. It was a series of computers, rather than an single model, but it was defined by the things that define the electric computer today, unless the electric computer is something wild like a neural net, etc, which owes little to the Manchesters. Did the fact that it was elusive suggest that it was one of mine :) ~Inkstersco 13 Jan 06


 * Yes and no. I jsut couldn't imagine Oswax coming up with such an extravagant word. And I certainly know I didn't add it :D BryanAJParry 23:16, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * So do you reckon it's worthy of the moot or overly confusing? Inkstersco 10:34, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is overclear, but I do think that is is appropriate for the moot. BryanAJParry 14:11, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

A recent post by unnamed (I think it might be your IP, Ian), notes on the edit "law is an Anglo-Saxon word". Actually, it is a Norse word, but it was in Anglo-Saxon. But what is the significance of stating its origins? I am a little puzzled. It ain't important, tho, I'm just curious. :) Bryan 82.44.212.6 20:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where why or whether I wrote it. Law is a good Anglish word on every level so I'm not sure whjat's going on :-S 81.157.242.12 09:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Civilisation=Tamefolkhood
I quite like the folkhood bit, and I certainly think it should be, therefore, SOMETHINGfolkhood, but I'm not so sure about "tame". What does everyone else think? BryanAJParry 01:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I got "tame" through the word "civil" meaning "calm, and peaceful".70.242.2.31 03:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Lose the "folk". Maybe tamehood. Alright, what is Civilisation? It's widespread organisation of communication, cumulative knowledge, town planning, refined behavior -- All the things that come from a commitment to widespread co-operation. We lack a word for Civil and Organised. I say let's not jump the gun until we do. Inkstersco 08:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe 'tamehood' is too near to meaning 'domestication' (thought I dare say that 'civilization' and 'domestication' are somewhat alike!). I think that 'civilization', like 'culture' and 'society', is one of those words which we are wont to say or write, but giving little thought to what they truly mean.


 * Getting to the root meaning of a word, like Inkstersco said, is the key. It is working together, living together, leaning on others for the work they do, and others leaning on us for our work. But moreso it means writing, lore, thought, indeed so many things, as well as a general 'good thing' feeling anent a way of life. Finding one word to sum this up is hard.


 * I think that maybe a word ending in '-life' or '-living' could be a good start, but what word to put before it? 'Townliving' may be too soft, and 'rightliving' would only bear the meanings of 'civilized is better'. Is there a good word for 'developed', 'mature' or 'sophisticated'? Oswax Scolere 10:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Aha! Aha! The Wilderless! Gosh that was clever of me. Or, how about, Boundliving? Tamelife? It's sure good to be back in civilisation! Hmm...I don't like it to be too towny; The figureheads of our civilisation prefer the country. Lawlife?Inkstersco 16:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Aha! Kemptlife? Kemptliving? Kemptman would also be a good word for Gentleman, for what does Gentleman mean today, if not "civilised man"? Inkstersco 12:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest, all this chatter is just making me think "civilisation" is an alright word afterall. I mean, Anglish isn't a "Pure" language. No language is. For what it's worth, the German word is Zivilisation, the Dutch are beschaving and ontwikkeling, and the Swedish is civilisation'. The two Dutch words translate, more-or-less exactly, as: "begrazing" and "development/growth", so far as I can make out. Both pretty crap, to be honest. In this vein, perhaps "settle(d)hood" or "fieldtendinghood", or something. I say stick with "civilisation", tho. :) BryanAJParry 20:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But Bryan, many Romance words are alright words, but that's not the point. Indeed, Latin itself is an alright language. If a writer finds Civilisation to be an alright word, he or she will use it. However, we provide the option to use non-Romance for whatever reason. I agree that Civilisation is better than your two suggestions, but that's because your two suggestions are ugly, so there :P Inkstersco 21:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree, to be honest. It **seems** that there is no option available for "civilisation". Given the fact that most other Germanic languages seem to use the word "Civilisation", too, perhaps that is further evidence that there really isn't need for an Anglish equivelant. Our words for Civilisation are all kinda crap. Therefore, instead of cluttering up the wordbook (which is sorta supposed to be "official".. kinda...) with shitty words, why not just save it for half-decent ones, and let individual writers decide for themselves what "civilisation" should be? There is no point "providing the option" if our options are shit. :P 82.44.212.6 21:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * But, if you INSIST there need be a word for it (:P :P :P :P), then it must have something to do with what defines civilisation as opposed to pre-history. the obvious two things are written records, and staying in one place for a while/tending crops. Bryan 82.44.212.6 21:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that to keep up the public image of Anglish, no word at all is better than an inelegant word. I believe in quality over quantity. Better than both of them however, is an elegant A-S word. There are non-shitty words for civilisation. Kemptliving almost sounds natural. Wilderless almost does, if not a little whimsical. I agree with keeping bad words away from public eyes but I don't see why Civilisation is so elusive. We just have to use our intelligence to find a solution -- nobody said it was easy. 81.157.113.222 06:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Citizen is Incast
Is that as opposed to "outcast"? Quite an interesting formation. :) Bryan 82.44.212.6 22:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Castle
This word, whilst a borrowing, did exist in OE (so my sources tell me). Bryan 82.44.212.6 09:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup, but wouldn't something like "burg" be more appropriate, considering that borough meant in Middle English "a castle or fortified dwelling" aswell as "dwelling, refuge, stronghold" according to Chambers Dictionary of Etymology. Also the cognates for "borough/burg" in other Germanic languages mean "castle". Padraig 16.06.2006

Complete
One of the Anglish words for complete is finish. Isn't finish a French word?


 * Quite right. However, whoever added "finish" had a serious point. Namely, that it is far plainer are more readily understood than "complete". Anglish isn't about PURE 100% Germanic, because that is nonsense. However, it is arguable that "finish" should be outtaken for it is not Germanic. However, I would argue for its staying, as it is impossible to be 100 "pure", and finish is far more naturalised and so forth. Bryan 82.44.212.6 13:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Then where should we draw the line? What makes a word Anglish or not? Does it leave out straight-from-Latin words only or does it also leave out Latin-through-French words too? Is the year 1220 a good cut off year for un-Germanic words? How about words coming through French through Frankish or Dutch? Help me understand please.70.241.28.212 22:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The simple answer is, I'm afraid, we don't have a WATERTIGHT idea of what is good Anglish and what is not. We are hoping such agreements will come in time. Anglish is very much an evolving beast (altho me, Oswax, and Ian already have agreed certain fundamentals of the "project"). What do we have agreed (set me right, someone, if you disagree), is that: words attested before oct 14th 1066 are automatically acceptable, words which follow the analogy and rules of English words are acceptable, non-Germanic words where an alternative cannot be foudn are to be (indefinitely) accepted. But there are these problems. I think, for the purposes of clearness, maybe we should just ignore "complete" and "finish" altogether. The only problem with that is, when we need to have a word for the concept in a writ, what do we do? The obvious answer is just use the plainer word (finish), but just don't bother to list "finish" or "complete" in the wordbook. What say ye? Bryan 82.44.212.6 17:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I was thinking of drawing up a list of words attested before 1066, just for everyone's sake. Do you reckon that's a good idea? Would it be useful? :) Bryan 82.44.212.6 17:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be cool. :) 70.241.28.212 20:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, we tend to opt for words which are attested later. In otherwise, just borrowing the entire wordstock of Old English would not do. It would solve our problems, but it wouldn't work for this project. The brief is to make best use of the Germanic resources of English. Therefore, we TEND to shy away from words not attested after, say, 1400/1500. But words before this ruff date are fine, so long as there is a compelling reason, or it is felt the word is essential or still understandable. :) Bryan 82.44.212.6 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Withloud
"Withloud" for "consonant". It's a worthy try. I certainly understand the homeborn word "loud" is "sound" in the other Germanic languages. HOWEVER, I just don't think it works in English; the meaning of "loud" has shifted too much, I feel. Bryan BryanAJParry 20:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see the problem. "Loud" in English is an adjective, but the substantive "a loud" could be used to represent "noise"? Padraig 16.06.2006


 * Hmm. But you have to think, "what IS a consonant?". All sounds have noise/sound. In fact, vowels are more resonant than consonants, and some consonants are loud whilst some are rather quiet. So it's a bit of a misnomer. And of course, we must define sounds in speech, because it isn't needfully just vowels vs. consonants, but, say, continuants versus stops (sounds where the sound can ongo, against sounds where the sound cannot be held). Essentially, tho, vowels are made with no constriction, and consonants are made with constriction (not even essentially true, but it is a mite more accurate than "consonants" have sound whilst "vowels" do not). William Barnes (dead poet, linguist, teacher, priest, Anglish champion) said "breathsound" for "vowel", which isn't bad, and "breath-penning" or "clipping" for "consonant", which isn't great. I don't have any better ideas, but let's not be hasty. :) BryanAJParry 20:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What about "Withdin"? Din being a synonym for "Noise". Might be a bit ambitious but I thought I'd try. 212.50.170.190 11:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)