anent 'AIR: I know "air" is a French root, but it is a perfectly understandable English word. The distinction between "air" and "sky" is a REALLY useful one. So unless you intend on bringing back to life "loft"'s sense of "air", then there really is no better word. Sure, "flyer, skyman", these both work in this instance (despite "airman" being THE plain English word). However, what about when the distinction between sky and air becomes crucial? For instance, I forewhile listed "fish-farming" for "aquaculture". Is this to become "fish-acremanning", or something, because "farm" is a French word? I hope not... I say we put back "airman" (and co), but just shunt it to the back of the list (for not being "pure" English). :) BryanAJParry 23:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Aye, Airman is a real word for Aviator, especially in America. I do think Skyman is better, but after pilot, I think Airman is the most common word. I think this is a case of a totally inconspicuous Romance word. Other words for "air" would be quite inelegant. Of course maybe we should omit the entry entirely and allow Romance by default, instead of find "alternative Romance", thus simplifying our filter. I put the word back but it's at your mercy hereafter. ~Inkstersco
But if Airman is indeed the plainer, more English word for it than "aviator" (which it is), then why SHOULDN'T it go in the list? Bryan 23:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Because it's like skipping Charles to get to William. As soon as the rules are broken it's harder to agree on a way of working, or on what the overall goal is. I agree that ideal English is not necessarily 100% Anglish, but I think that Anglish as described here ought not to be Romance. However, maybe we should have a seperate page for Anglicisations: E.g. Duchy-Dukedom ~Inkstersco

What about using 'husbandry' as an alternative for farming. So, another possible word for aquaculture could be 'fish-husbandry'? It is an attested word for farming. 14:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to find "Bright" with the sense of "one who does not believe in God(s)" in the OED, so I was wundering after the logic of this word. :) BryanAJParry 15:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it to say "without belief".

"Bright" is a word that I read in an article for "atheist" used lately in America to avoid the negative stigmas and workplace discrimination, which doesn't exist over here. It's a bit like "gay" for homosexual. I don't think it would be in the OED but it is an established PC term. 08:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the "bear" mean? BryanAJParry 22:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is akin to German '-bar' which roughly translates as '-able'. Oswax Scolere 22:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... I HATE criticising, but I really hate it. It doesn't exist in English, and is a direct import from German, it would seem. If one REALLY must get rid of -able in favour of something else (I don't see why, tho), then we already have -some. Why this outlandish word? One thing we all agree on is that Anglish is not about Germanising English, but Germanicising. Two totally different things. I would suggest -bear is a tad inappropriate :) BryanAJParry 23:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
It is alright to mislike a word! One of our strengths is that we have enough room to let everybody give their thoughts on a word, and that way a writer can choose the one they like best. I don't feel the need to forward one kind of Anglish over another, I only choose for myself the words I like, and let things grow from there.
In truth, I don't like '-able' and would like an Anglish word for it. Sadly, I think neither '-some' nor '-bear' fit. I am left only with the thought that maybe we don't always need something like '-able'. I would overbring the following: 'her voice was not audible because of the noise', as something like: 'her speech could not be heard over the din'. I don't know what other tongues do, but this at least lets me write out I thought without having to find a new word. Oswax Scolere 19:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
May I suggest: Hearworthy or hearfast? 09:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I think -some fits far better the meaning than -worthy or -fast. I think -some fits best, -fast and -worthy fit less well, and -bear fits not at all. Personally, I shall keep using -some formations. But your solution is a good one, Oswax. BryanAJParry 11:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The wee problem is, -some means capable of doing X, rather than capable of having X done unto it. "-some" means the same as -y "Achey breaky heart". I think the best possible solution is Be-...-some. Behearsome? ~Iain
Would it be worthwhile gathering up all known words with the '-some' suffix and analysing what they mean? This way we could sort out whether or not it has the '-able' meaning, and if not, what it can be used for. It may turn out to have a different, though yet useful, meaning. Oswax Scolere 13:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree to that. Personally, I have no problem with -able because, in the REAL world, folk don't have a problem with it.... but as far as ANGLISH goes, let us look into all possibilities. BryanAJParry 15:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright chaps, here's what the OED has to say on the -some, -able matter.

suffix1, representing OE. -sum, = OFris. -sum, related by ablaut to OS. and OHG. -sam (G. -sam, Du. -zaam), ON. -samr (Sw. -sam, Da. -som), Goth. -sams, used in OE. to form adjs. from nouns and adjs., as fri{edh}sum peaceful, {asg}enyhtsum abundant, ánsum whole, langsum lasting, rarely from verbs, as hýrsum, héarsum obedient. A few of the OE. formations survived in early ME., but only two or three are now in use, as longsome, lovesome, winsome. In ME. a number of new examples appear, some of which soon became obsolete, as beisome, fol{ygh}some, friendsome, lustsome, wlatsome, while others (chiefly dating from the 14th century) have remained current, as cumbersome, fulsome, gamesome, gladsome, handsome, lightsome, loathsome, noisome, wholesome. The early ME. buhsum, buxum is now represented by buxom, in which the suffix is disguised. In the 16th century appear awesome, brightsome, darksome, healthsome, heartsome, quarrelsome, and the unusual formation timorsome. Of later date are adventuresome, bothersome, fearsome, frightsome, lonesome, plaguesome, etc., and various nonce-formations as clipsome, cuddlesome, dabblesome, divertsome, some of which have a passive, others an active, sense.

a. Fr. -able:{em}L. -{amac}bilem, adj. suffix, the special form taken by the suffix -bili- (see -BLE) when added to vbs. in -{amac}re, Fr. -er. Extended in Fr. to vbs. of all conjugations, -ble taking the place of -nt in pr. pple., thus périss-able, recev-able, vend-able, défend-able, mouv-able. Originally found in Eng. only in words from OFr. but soon by analysis of such instances as pass-able, agree-able, amend-able, treated as a living suffix, and freely employed to form analogous adjectives, not only on vbs. from Fr., but at length on native words, as bearable, speakable, breakable, wearable. This extension seems to be largely due to form-association with the adj. ABLE (to which the suffix is not related), so that eatable, e.g. is taken as eat + able, able to be eaten. The vb. has often a n. of the same form, as in debat-able, rat(e)-able; these lead the way to such as carriageable, clubbable, where the n. seems to be the source, and saleable, in which no vb. exists. Recent usage adds -able even to a verbal phrase as get-{sm}at-able, come-{sm}at-able. Now always with passive sense, but in early words often active, as in comfortable, suitable, able to comfort, suit.

Hearable: That can be heard, audible.

Audible: A. adj. 1. Able to be heard, perceptible to the ear. 2. Able to hear. Obs. rare. B. n. [the adj. used absol.] A thing capable of being heard.

Make of that what you will. BryanAJParry 20:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No one has followed up the above definitions. However, the above definitions, plus the existance of synonym pairs such as "lovesome" and "loveable", leads me to the conclusion that -some for -able is more-or-less always the right choice. Opinions? Bryan 09:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I wish it were that simple, but it doesn't seem to be so. Think about Winsome and Winable. X-some seems to mean that the subject is able to do X. X-able seems to mean that the subject can have X done to it. The workaround for this plight is to use be-X-some for X-able. That's the best we'll ever do. However, I don't know whether X starting with a vowel shall be a problem. Is be- ever used before a vowel? ~Inkstersco
The "win! in those two words is different. Also, as the OED definitions above say, sometimes -some is active, sometimes it is passive... Bryan 23:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand that x-some can be passive or active, but -able only means passive, so doesn't have a substitute of equal worth. Maybe would should do the following: Un-X-able = X-fast, like in acid-fast (although unbreakable becomes breakfast :( ) Maybe we could use -y for something. Is "achey breaky heart" passive or active? Maybe if we worked with Be- , -Some , -Fast, Un-, and -Y would could come up with an unambiguous solution. When talking about Winning, I ought to be able to distinguish between the player and the prize. ~Inkstersco
Please to read the OED explanation. "-some" is used to shape adjectives from nouns or other adjectives. It is in no way like "-able" which frames verbs as adjectives

Amazed, amazing Edit

Should amazed/amazing be thought of as unanglish? OED and my old, Webster's wordbooks read that amasian, hence amaze, is attested in Old English. OED reads that the a- prefix is likely intensive, and in Webster's, the intensive a- prefix is said to be from nothing other than Old English. In OED and Webster's, the etymology of maze is unknown, but all close cognates are Germanic.

You're quite right. Amaze, whilst not totally uncontroversial in its etymology, is certainly likelily a Germanic word. Bryan 22:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: However, because it's etymology is a bit controversial, unlike, say, geason or aghast, it seems reasonable to have it listed. What does everyone else think? Bryan 22:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Me personally, I see nothing wrong with the word 'Amaze' and its derivatives. Geason and aghast are cool words also, but I think 'amaze' and the rest are perfectly acceptable. 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Abandon Edit

Hi guys! Isn't the infinitive of the second given option "forlose" instead of "forlese"? Padraig 16.06.2006

No. ;) :D BryanAJParry 19:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Adore - Love Edit

I thought we were meant to bring these things up on the talk leaf before outtaking them, and even then only if there is agreement. Has the policy changed? 15:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi -- I do appreciate the need to discuss stuff and my mentioning of having taken it out was an invitation to discuss it. However, I don't overall think it's good that addition should be made easier than deletion, and if anything I think it should be the other way around -- That things should be discussed before being added, but that's not an established policy at all. Btw, I think that Love is ambiguous enough as it is. ~Inkstersco
Hi, I can kind of see your point. I guess love has many meanings, from adore, to even meaning to enjoy something. Besides, I seldomly hear the word adore being used. 10:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


In my scheme these are attested by a major dictionary, or analogous to something attested in such a dictionary, and must be a synonym of sorts. So, for example, Uncleft is an attested English word, but when used for Atom, it is unattested. ~Inkstersco

Note : Try not to bollocks anything up by putting your unattested words in the bracket that colours things blue, and vice versa. ~Inkstersco

Angry is OEEdit

Well, it was in OE. I'm sorry guys, but can we stop adding alternatives for words which are attested before 1066.... Bryan 23:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and even if it wasn't, Heated is a pretty weak synonym, which might creep into a thesaurus entry for Angry but seems a bit daft as the lone suggestion. ~Inkstersco

I guess it worked then? 23:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You guess *what* worked? Bryan 20:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


Allay is not a borrowed word. 10:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


"Arouse" is ME and likely springs from ON "reisa", "to raise". The OE cognate of "reisa" was "raeran", "to rear". The "r" owes to grammatischer Wechsel. "Raeran" is a causative of "risan", "to rise". Since "rise" is unchanged by grammatisher Wechsel, I don't see why its unchanged causative from OE's sister ON shouldn't be borrowed.--Jrmints 23:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Assign etcEdit

Why did whoever added these words make them black? Most them are attested words\phrases.


Sorry about my lack of thought and care. I hope now all is OK.

Sholto 13:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

-ant, -ent Edit

It seems me that these helpful and well-known endings might as well be borrowed in the stead of English equivilent "-end". Unlike "-ing", the "-end" participles may form namewords e.g. a "shapend" means someone who is shaping something whereas a "shaping" means an act of shaping. This ending might make overwending Romish namewords like "suplicant", "aplicant", "insurgent", "militant", "diviant" and others much easier.

Do you have any examples of -end being used in that way, that we can learn from? ~Inkstersco
Like I said, "shapend" may mean "someone who is ashaping/shapend", yefare with OE "halig scippend" a name of God meaning "holy creator. This is how it would be used if were still in the tongue. However, since it isn't, I think it shall be more workable to simply use the well-known Romish "-ent/ant" which is still used this way in words like "suplicant", "aplicant", and the rest. This eases meaningful translation of some Romish words and fulfills the English speaker's might for shaping new words.

Colouring Edit

Why, despite the big red warning at the top of the page do people still just ignore it and put very real words like "eager" in black? The colouring is there for a reason -- it gives people the choice of whether they wish to use invented words(speak Anglish as an artificial language), or established words (artful but correct English). If this isn't going to work maybe we should reformat the paghes into columns. I'd like to consult Oswax on that idea. Inkstersco 17:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is too tedious to mark colors, peoples can already discern, without coloring, which words is real english and which ons is calque --Pyurio 17:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
They shouldn't be able to tell. Good Anglish should resemble natural English. If you can tell intuitively that a word is invented, it should be deleted. Thewsome? Real or not? Nobody can tell, so it's a good invented word. "Underwhole" for "incomplete" is a good word but I don't want to give anyone the impression that it's a real, established word. Anglish should use as few inventions as possible, and so it's important for writers to know which are and which aren't inventions 18:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


I'm a bit confused with this word. I have found two different etymologies for it and can't be sure which one is correct. Some sources say it comes from Old French estoner meaning 'to stun' whereas others say it comes from Old English astunian. The same can be said of the word 'stun' itself which some say is from the same Old French estoner but others say its from Old English Stunian 'to resound'. Are these words foreign or not? Any thoughts?

adultery Edit

adultery and whoredom do not have the same meaning. whoredom - the practice of accepting payment in exchange for sexual relations; prostitution. adultery - Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse

outhaming work? Xelebes 16:18, August 25, 2011 (UTC)


This word bothers me somewhat. I know it's likely to be brought down from "appear", which is of Romish roots, however, there is also an Icelandish word that means the same thing: áberandi which I understand as being brought down from the doingword bera á... so is it not mayly that this word be kept? Only a thought.... XeniaC 22:56, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Audible Again Edit

Since there wasn't really any consensus on the Anglish translation of "Audible", I propose "Hearly" or "Behearly" be used, since the Old English is gehīerendlic. Please keep in mind that I'm not a scholar of Old English, so I'm not sure how the postfix changed, and thus whether or not the usage is correct here. Outermost Toe 18:20, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Well thought of. Feel free to put it on the leaf. Morgoth Bauglir 19:03, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
Argh. I can't figure out how to work the table.Outermost Toe 23:31, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
Never mind. I had to use the "Source" button.Outermost Toe 23:35, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Algorithm, algebra

Rimewile? Rimewilery? What do you folk think? Wile is forsought here as it means 'device or thought device.' Read the nowspoken "wily" and "wiles."

Xelebes 22:55, March 14, 2011 (UTC)Xelebes

Algebra is from arabic meaning something like "the gathering" so how about rimegatherdom or rimegatherlore. AS for algorithm, rimelaw?

To-coming otheredoneness 02:28, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Rimelaw sounds more like calculus. Algebra is more an invention or language of the algorithm (a wile or device using numbers) allowing you to group things together. Rimegatherdom is rather ungainly. Calculus is the laws that bind functions and algorithms together and would be better known as a rimelaw.

Also on the audi- latin roots: anyone got any good ones for audit/auditor? I'm getting forhear; forhearing - but I'm not liking the gerund for the noun. I've been trying to look up the strong-verb→strong-noun discussions. It looks like the geswin-swan connection happened in the Proto-Germanic period, but I'm trying to see if there are other instances that happened later. Can anyone find any?

It seems like you're saying that calculus is the study of rimelaws. If so then rimelaw does indeed work well for algorithm, in which case calculus would be rimelawlore. 16:04, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

Army Edit

Only thinking of the spellings here. Would Harry be a good spelling? I know the deed (and harrow) is from Hergian but Harry seems to be the best forethrowing of the old words Hire, Here and so forth. The Black Harry, The English Harry, The Markish Harry. Eh? Eh?

== Trouble adding rows in visual mode ==

Trouble adding rows in visual modeEdit

I have been trying to add the words suggested by William Barnes to the wordbook, but I find that in visual mode, when I right-click on a table row and select "Insert row before/after", nothing happens. Has anyone else had this problem, and more importantly, have they found a solution? I have Javascript enabled on the page, and use Firefox as my browser, if that helps. It is most irksome (to use the last word I added).--Nick xylas (talk) 15:18, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

In reading through many talk leafs it would seem that many folks are having this hardship. The ethest [easiest] answer would be to do it in "Source Mode". See this for more knowledge on how to do it: Palerose (talk) 07:53, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
I was afraid you'd say that. If editing in source mode is the easiest option, this is going to be a loooong task! --Nick xylas (talk) 14:52, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Could someone kindly add the words: 'overslop' and 'overall' for: 'apron'
Thanks, 18:20, January 30, 2013 (UTC)Anglish lurker
Done! :) —Faxfleet (talk) 09:11, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Genius alert!Edit

Some genius made the boxes longer. Go see the talk on the page English Wordbook for mooore description. Its driving me insane.{{SUBST:User:CrabKakeZ MD027/sig}} 02:28, March 22, 2013 (UTC)


Markland and Vinland are parts of America, yes, but they don't work with the whole thing. Henry or Hank wouldn't work, and same with anything else there, except New World. So, New World or Newworld would work for the whole continent. But, then, the country should have its own name. I think there would be confusion and ambiguity if we kept the America-America thing. Let's make up a name. My attempts aren't very successful, but I have used "Farholt" (pretending the Vikings had found most of the USA east of the Mississippi and also around the Great lakes back when they were all Foresty) from the Norse for far woodland. Thoughtes??--{{SUBST:User:CrabKakeZ MD027/sig}} 04:59, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

How about 'Westhern'? Anglofrench (talk) 07:23, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, please explain. I like the sound of "Westhern". What does it come from? And is it west-hern or westh-ern? And is it the country or the continent? Sorry that I wrote this not in Anglish, I just wanted to write it fast. {{SUBST:User:CrabKakeZ MD027/sig}} 19:12, June 7, 2013 (UTC)--

Aardvark need not be overset. Edit

Aardvark is given oversets unneedfully as this word stems from Old English; from etymonline: 1833, from Afrikaans Dutch aardvark, literally "earth-pig" (the animal burrows), from aard "earth" (see earth) + vark "pig," cognate with Old High German farah (source of German Ferkel "young pig, sucking pig," a diminutive form), Old English fearh (see farrow). As you can see, it has Germanic roots and there is no need to overset it. Perhaps this belongs somewhere else, in a spot for synonyms (we need a word for that).

Thank you for addressing this neglected issue! (The issue of how we should deal with Germanic words in English that are not directly from Anglo-Saxon.) Aardvark is indeed an Afrikaans Dutch word, and its elements aard and vark stem not from Old English but from Dutch's ancestor Frankish if I'm not mistaken. But I think "earthfarrow" is a logical choice for translating/adapting aardvark. –Faxfleet (talk) 08:08, December 8, 2014 (UTC)



I have seen that one of the suffixes for "-able" has been put as "-ber" from .cf. OE -bære, Fr. -ber, NHG -bar, Du. -baar. I was only wonder if this "-ber"  is overset right into today's English. Is "-ber" the right one? Or, would it be "-bear"? I was thinking that "-ber" might be right since the NHG. "-bar" comes from MHG "'-bære" which is the same as the OE one. but I do not fully know if it is the best suffix. -ber, -bar?? Wordforword (talk) 05:36, July 20, 2017 (UTC)

If we take a look on the Frisian tung, wich is the nearest germanish tung to English, they also write "-ber". So i think "-ber" is the right one. Alfredikus (talk) 06:59, July 20, 2017 (UTC)
Good thinking. I've also found  (through wiktionary) that ME has "-bere"  So... -ber would fit the flow. Wordforword (talk) 00:13, July 21, 2017 (UTC)


What do you think of "quickling" for animal? It's sort of a calque from Latin, as Old English quick means lively or animated, like an animate object (as opposed to an inanimate object or lifeform). Quick also means alive, as opposed to dead, but that doesn't strike me as a major hurdle to understanding. A more direct calque of Latin animale would be "breather" or "breatheling" ("breathling"?). I guess I just wanted a new, Anglish word for animal since the Old English deer and beast have evolved narrower meanings, being is more broad than animal, and wight wouldn't be understandable by non-Anglish-enthusiasts. John Petrie (talk) 18:23, April 23, 2018 (UTC)

I don't think being or wight are any worse, but I like the thought. Quick to me seems to mostly mean fast, or perhaps "running" (e.g. quicksilver for mercury). Breather or anything else like that seems to yout sea life. Maybe lifeling, liveone, or something else like that? Perhaps not narrow enough to animals? Maybe something with "shrithe"? TimeMaster (talkcontribs) 21:06, April 23, 2018 (UTC)

Oooh, yes, "shritheling" or something with "shrithe" would be good. I know sometimes I don't like using Old English words with their Old English meanings because today I think of them as having a different meaning, but when I think of a good Anglish word based on an Old English meaning, as I did with quick, I'm all for restoring the Old English meaning and ignoring the fact that it might give a different impression to 21st-century English speakers. I was trying to think of calques for the Latinate word animal, which gives a sense of animated, moving, lively (as opposed to sedentary or plant-like, or microbes that might move quite fast but aren't big enough to see). As it happens, I only recently found out animale came from breath or breathing. When I wrote my post above, it never even occurred to me that breathling would leave out sea creatures. (And plants technically breathe, too, just not with lungs.) By the way, how would you use shrithe in a sentence? What sense of "move" does it convey? The English Wordbook under "M" says wander, so is it just basically that? John Petrie (talk) 00:59, April 24, 2018 (UTC)

I just brook it how move is brooked. It likely would have went (changed) to have an alike meaning at some time. Shritheling might work, yes... TimeMaster (talkcontribs) 01:21, April 24, 2018 (UTC)

Abdomen Edit

Under abdomen, the very sensible (to me) word "belly" is not included. The word is undisputably English in origin, yet not listed despite it being used commonly in modern English to mean abdomen. Any reason why?Purpleduracell (talk) 04:58, January 9, 2020 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.