Hi, just a question. After you post, this comes up: Oswax Scolere 23:27, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC). How do I change my setting so that the same thing for me comes up after my posts?

Hi. I don't want you to intervene or aught, nor do I wish for your backing, as it were. But I just want to ask if you think I am admonishing Ian too harshly in this talkleaf: http://anglish.wikicities.com/wiki/Talk:English_Wordbook/T I did send him an email before when we disagreed about "wight" (altho I did come round to his way of thinking in the end) saying, basically, that is isn't anything personal, no matter how heated it may get. But I'm kinda getting frustrated, and I'm worried that I might be being overly harsh, therefore. I certainly don't want Ian to leave.

We have a really liberal policy when it comes to new words: basically, anything goes. Well, anything that has a mite of sense in it. And that means that blatant contradictions or absurdities kinda have to be rooted out, right? Anyway, despite these hiccups, I think the moot is still going well. :D BryanAJParry 19:19, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. It seems etymonline may be in trubble. I bought the shorter Oxford English Dictionary in any case. It cost a lot- 95 quid- but it is pretty useful. I've already added some ATTESTED ANGLISH words to the wordbook from it. Will add more, too. :) 14:15, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Alright. You sometimes mention a new spelling system for English. Just curious if this page is anything like what you may have concieved of. :) Bryan 00:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC) http://anglish.wikicities.com/wiki/English_Spellings

I too own the Shorter Oxford and it is truly helpful. - Mr Bozo, 10 July

Thanks for the Anglish wikipedia, Oswax. Scant time ago, I wrote a leaf for "Christendom," which sounds more Anglish to me than "Christianity," by taking your words from "Christianity" and putting them at "Christendom". I was going to do a "redirect" (as is said in English) to "Christendom" but thought I'd best ask you first, since I bow to you in this wiki. Cheers, Rinnenadtrosc 03:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


Greetings Oswax

I am new to this wiki and so I am unsure how it all brooks...

Anyway, what I want to ask is if there is a place on this Wiki where one can talk freely anent all kinds of things, not only Anglish? I have love for this tongue, and so want to speak it with others.FranzJericho 12:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

G'day Mate, Thanks for your words about my work on the " Book Of Beginnings". I like writing in Anglish, and hopefully one day will find the time to overbring all of the 50 headings. Many thanks for your work in setting up "The Anglish Moot". ~Sholto

Language Documenting Tool

Hi Oswax, This is the first I have heard about Anglish and I like the idea of it. I read that you are making an Anglish word book and I thought that you might like to have a look at my site www.mylanguagenotebook.com [1]. MLN is a FREE app that you can download from the site. The app allows you to make a project (e.g. 'Anglish Word Book') and add as many sentences (with translations, notes and audio) to it as you want. You can categorise the entries however you like and the app allows searching etc. When you have made a project you can just save it as a single file (including the audio and everything else) and send this file to anyone you want as an attachment. they can then open it in their MLN and see (and hear) what you have done. You can also upload your project file to the site so that others can download it. There are a number of good project files already available for download from the site. 'Grammar - Articles' is quite a good demonstration of what the app can do. Anyway, good luck with your endevours. Cheers, Jim Morrison

Just an asking

Hi, just so I don't make any mistakes, are you setting out to:

1.Replace all Romance words, or 2.Replace all non-Germanic words, or 3.Replace all non-English words.

Thanks! Gott wisst Gott Wisst's talkpage 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


Do you think I could be made a moderator or an admin? I've noticed spam articles seem to be added everyday, and I'd love to get rid of them and clear the place up. There has to be a way to stop accounts just created from making those spam articles. >< Sjheiss 01:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

New work for bookcraft

Dear Oswax Scolere,

Some time ago I enbarked myself into the tongue undertaking (=linguistic adventure, is it right?) again-shaping the downwriting of Scream (a 1996 film) and Scream2 (its following) with some Middle English marks like gainrising "thou" and putting some germanish-stemmed words in stead of latin-stemmed ones.

Now, I saw your Anglish Moot, and I said to myself: "Wonderful, this is what I was searching!"

Does my aforesaid work breach any eftyield right (=copyright)? And art thou intrysted to read my output? If yes, thou canst reach me at this wattmail: articioc@libero.it

Bewondering greetings,

Your Articioch

Hi Articioch,

So you know for any of your forthcoming inputs: search/ try/ embark are all French-root words. Anglish wants to ernestly lessen or weed out almost all unneeded neeting( use) of French-ringing (sounding) words. However, it doesn't wish to shift about the todays' building and ranking(order) of wordsets(sentences). Oldy-worldy ways of speaking make the goal of Anglish much harder to reach. English 'You' would have shoved 'Thou' out of everyday speech whether French had come into play or not. And a set wordranking would have come into being anyway.

Gallitrot :)

Hello Oswax Scolere - question about groups for Anglish

I have found that you are the founder of the Anglish Moot wiki. I hope you don't mind that I write to you here. I left a question on the group's community Threshold a day ago and several of the other contributors. I wonder if you can help. The following was the question that I left on the Threshold:

I was looking to contact the wiki owner or make a question on the group forum, but I couldn't find any contact info. Does anyone know of there is an Anglish Yahoo! / Google Group? I thought it would be interesting to have a group of discussion about retracing the Germanic elements of English. If a Yahoo! / Google Group doesn't exist, would anyone here be interested in creating one? Thanks! Cavallero 23:55, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

Petition for a Anglish forum on Theshold

Dear User:Oswax_Scolere, Please find a petition for the creation of an Anglish forum of discussion on the Moot's Theshold page The_Anglish_Moot:Threshold. Please follow the guide and sign the petition along with what platform of discussion you would prefer and indicate whether you are willing to help administrate. Thanks! Cavallero 01:37, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

Dear User:Oswax_Scolere, Polling has closed on the Threshold page The_Anglish_Moot:Threshold on deciding what forum we want. There was slight preference for creating a Yahoo! Group with a Facebook group. A Yahoo! Group has now been created, although I'm still creating the necessary docs for the group. Please come join us there! Here's the new Moot link: The Anglish Moot --Cavallero 21:19, November 1, 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for the welcome —I know it was probably automatic, but I actually was hoping to ask someone a few things. I stumbled upon the English moot by chance and loved it. Embarassingly I first posted a post in the threshold, only to later realise the sillyness of it, and posted again an even longer post: possibly unsurprisingly, nobody answered, so I'd like to help but I am stuck as I'd like to ask more—hence my asking you.

In some areas of wikipedia, everyone is pigeonholed in their own project and few post in talk pages are ever answered, while others have cooperating communities. I do not want to waltz in and step on the toes of established editors, but I would like to tidy up and make more visible to new visitors the various pages (in English) about Anglish —having found it the weakest link: should I go ahead and change around or ask people. Also, what is the best place to talk with the community? Thanks Squidonius 04:51, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, thaks for your answer; I have another frayn: How would you be able to embed translations within underlined words, by revealing them only when the curser is moved onto the word, as seen on many drawing leafs on this forum?

kind regards Anglofrench 19:34, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have a short question

I noticed that the "Save leaf" button contains a French-derived word (save) and since I couldn't edit it, I left a comment on its talk page: MediaWiki talk:Savearticle. I am wondering who can edit buttons like this and would it be possible for me to get permission to do this as I feel that I could contribute to many of the buttons that have not been modified? --Wikitiki89 08:40, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

Thou never answered my frain. Didst thou not see it? --Wikitiki89 (talk) 08:36, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

I'm just getting started looking through this wiki (discovered Anglish a few days ago and am intrigued at least), so I'm just tidying up articles where there are gaps between a word and a comma, or things aren't spaced properly, etc., until I get more accustomed to hearing the language and comfortable with it.

My question is, should all words that are changed be in the English-to-Anglish Wordbook? For instance, I'm very new to this, and as I poked through the Bible I had to guess that "head" must mean "chapter", but I couldn't find an entry in the wordbook about it (nor was "head" listed in the Anglish Wordbook), and it would have been helpful for me to be sure of things like that. I guess I'm asking, is there some other list of words thought so common they aren't even put into the wordbook?

Doranwen (talk) 22:33, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There are no clear rules on what goes in the woordbook here. Think of it more like a mass of suggestions from which you can choose any you like, or add your own. I don't think anybody agrees with all the words in there. Oswax (talk) 18:18, July 18, 2012 (UTC)


You removed bishop, claiming that is is English. While this is technically true, as the word comes from OE biscop, it ultimately comes from the Ancient Greek ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos, “overseer”), from ἐπί (epi, “over”) + σκοπέω (skopeō, “I examine.”) In some ways, this makes bishop the Greek equivalent of the Latin supervisor, and the Germanic overseer.

As I said, you are technically correct in saying that the word existed in Old English, but perhaps we could put bishop back in with a note explaining its presence in OE.

StarDotJPG (talk) 15:35, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

There's no point putting bishop back in, because there's no need to replace the word. Words in English before a certain time, such as 1100 or 1200, aren't candidates for replacement. Oswax (talk) 17:00, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Hello Oswax,

My tews at tacking another row onto a spreadsheet have been unbearing. I have right-ticked and seen the walewords to "insert row" above and below yet on neither unshewer (Firefox; Chrome on Mac OS X) was this speedsome. Do I need another unshewer or must I have other sunderfreedoms to go on?

I eagerly await your help.


Wordminter (talk) 18:47, August 6, 2012 (UTC)Wordminter

If you want to insert a new row onto a table, it is best to do it in "source" rather than "visual". This looks more messy, but is easier to make sense of. Every row (in the English to Anglish Wordbook) in source should look like this:

|- <-This starts a new row.
|'''word to be replaced here'''
|''what kind of word it is''
|replacement word goes here if already known to English
|replacement word goes here if new

Just write four lines like this inbetween the lines for the entries that are before and after it alphabetically. You can click Forelook to see it it looks right. I hope that helps, but if you want to have a go at it and get it wrong, don't worry.Oswax (talk)

Need for clear rules

Since you are the "beginner" of this project (and I am apparently just a "beginner" of another sort despite my two and a half years of writing on this website), I submit this message in full respect of your unique authority in having founded and nurtured the development of the Anglish Moot. While the vast majority of edits that occur on this wiki are likely to be of a creative and expansionary nature and accordingly conducive to the free growth of an increasingly rich body of linguistic possibilities, I find your recent trend of sweepingly incisive edits to be less than beneficial to the end of a collaborative and productive community, as they have come somewhat unwarranted given the lack of clear and justified guidelines or policies that might have preempted any innocently unsanctioned puristic activity on the part of non-founding users. For instance, it seems you have become (or perhaps always been) hostile to the praxis of deriving significant quantities of vocabulary from what I feel to be in many cases the most logical source: Old English. Consider some of your latest revisions to the "What is Anglish?" page (though this will probably seem petty, I think the "What is Anglish?" page is nevertheless singularly significant in that it essentially defines and limits the acceptable approach to be taken on the entire Anglish Moot wiki): (1) you have changed "Old or obscure words..." to "Some old or obscure words..." no doubt to downplay the role of Anglo-Saxon derivations, (2) you have revised your original definition of acceptable candidates for replacement of foreign words from those from ca. 1000 C.E. on to those from ca. 1200 C.E. on, no doubt to limit the pool of acceptable candidates for replacement, (3) you have made the critical adjustment that the view according to which foreign words that entered the language "to fill a genuine need or gap in vocabulary" should be retained is not "permissive" but in fact "discerning," and thus this view comes across perhaps more favorably presented as a guideline than before, and (4) you have outright eliminated my mention of ex nihilo word creation as a legitimate means of replacement (an explanation for this exclusion would be appreciated). Is there no room for discussion on such matters, particularly as regards such arbitrary determinations as in (2), or are they merely your rightfully given directives? If the latter be the case, I'm afraid I will probably have little more to contribute to this website, for what my contributions are worth, as my methodology of purification (which has so far mostly involved citing philological ties, ancestral or otherwise hereditary, in order to justify replacements that I endeavor not to deplete but rather to add to the richness of the tongue so as to create a new English that sacrifices immediate intelligibility for aesthetic fullness) is apparently incompatible with your goals for this site. To quote from "What is Anglish?" once more, "None of these methods is right or wrong, but each has its place in creating a wide and varied lexicon for Anglish, and each is used according to the context and particular needs of a word." In spite of this statement, you did not hesitate to delete my suggestions for replacing the word "deprive" as "some crazy Old English bringbacks," and you have deleted plenty of replacements for long-standing foreign-origin words with such explanations as "Candle, chalk, cinder, clerk, cup and cut are all English words," "Silk is English," "Pipe is English," "Window is English," etc. - isn't every word in Modern English "English?" Couldn't I just as rightfully remove "remove" from the wordbook and comment that "Remove is English," or remove "deprive" from the wordbook and explain that "Deprive is English," and so on? Above all, what this website could benefit from most is a set of clear rules for what kind of contributions are to be encouraged and kind are to be discouraged (and consequently deleted). In your own words from above: "There are no clear rules on what goes in the woordbook [sic] here...I don't think anybody agrees with all the words in there." I'm sorry if I seem hostile; I would just like to see more rationality and fairness in the grand endeavor of Anglish, and I want to know if this website is really something for me and any who share my opinions on purist method. Faxfleet (talk) 06:41, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

No, you're quite right, there are no rules. I saw this worry many years ago. I disagree with a huge part of the content here, and find some of it frankly absurd, including the idea that bringing back Old English words is workable or welcome. But because of the supposed collaborative nature of this website, it is hard to delete anything without angering the original contributor or those of the same viewpoint. This is why I now blog elsewhere, because I can control my own vision for this project much better.
However, I am the only admin/bureaucrat still here, and without me a few important functions couldn't happen. I don't really feel it is fair to let folk down, and so have done a little cleaning up and fixing in the last few months. I also offered anybody to take this wiki if they wanted it, and relieve me of my duties. But there were no takers, despite waiting a few months. After that, I began tidying up a lot more, as if my name is going to be associated with this website, I want it to at least reflect my views to some degree. Hence the deletions of entries in the wordbook for borrowed word in Old English—I find it crazy that anybody would even think of trying to get rid of them.
If you would like admin/bureaucrat status, let me know, and I will give it to you. I will then cut all my official links with this website, and likely never edit again. I am quite happy to go about my own work in my own space. But if you're not willing to take it on, I have to stay. And if I stay, then I'm going edit it according to my goal, which yes, quite obviously, are incompatible with "sacrificing immediate intelligibility for aesthetic fullness". If you want the Moot, it's yours, and you can take it in any direction you want. Just say the word. Oswax (talk) 23:23, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I will gladly accept admin/bureaucrat status if you feel that is for the best. All of us here are indebted to you for your original vision in founding the Anglish Moot, and if I am to take over for you I will try to make sure that this wiki continues to grow as the "healthy and gleeful fellowship" it has become. Faxfleet (talk) 00:00, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
Okay, it's done, it's yours now. Let me know if it doesn't work. Feel free to changes anything I've written or done here, barring my comments on talk pages, of course. Oswax (talk) 13:37, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. It seems to have worked. Faxfleet (talk) 19:11, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to remind that some of the pages on this site are unreadable since layout settings were recently modified

ie. the English to Anglish dictionary...

Also, the home leaf is inaccessible until half way down the page...

Anglofrench (talk) 08:39, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

Anglofrench, the coloring of the tables on various pages including the main page and dictionary pages simply needs to be revised in order to be concordant with the new site color scheme. I'm not sure what's up with the advertisements pushing the text down on the main page, but unless it's just a coding issue I can always revert to a previous site style. The changes I made are merely an experiment to see if certain adjustments can make the Moot maybe more aesthetically pleasing and/or professional-looking, but I'm of course open to your feedback if you think there would be a better way of updating the site's look (or if you really don't think it needs updating). —Faxfleet (talk) 08:20, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would facilitate reading and text editing on certain pages. Perhaps reallowing the ads to appear on the side of the page would help bring back up text on the home page; if so then I think it could be useful to revert back to the original layout -or maybe another. Anglofrench (talk) 09:35, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
The only problem at the moment is that some pages don't seem to display the content out well enough - the text is faint; one really has to strain his/her eyes in order to read or edit properly - perhaps you could keep the layout and still find a way to fix this.
I've fixed the main page so it's properly readable, if somewhat bland at the moment. It was simply a matter of making the tables have transparent backgrounds and borders to match the white text. I believe similar adjustments will work for all other pages affected by such table coloring issues. —Faxfleet (talk) 19:16, November 2, 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I think the wordbook pages are in general need of being restructured for a unified system that allows for consistent and smooth formatting, such as perhaps even getting rid of the tables altogether and simply having easily editable lists. —Faxfleet (talk) 19:21, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

Hi Oswax 

Moot Administrator

Owing to my son being diagnosed with a very serious illness, I do not wish to take on or assume the role of administrator.

Sholto (talk) 09:50, May 6, 2019 (UTC)

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