I never undestood inches, miles and onzes. Why don't they use the metric system like the rest of the world?
Pure english
<<Is this just for fun or are you serious about this? If it's just for fun and you want to discuss this (even though it's not my cup of tea), then fine, but it you really want to purify English... >>
It's just for fun, but if the Anglo-Saxon based words are catchy (i.e. "fanguile"), and they are picked up in Modern English, that would be nothing new. Happens all the time (as neologisms, coinages, etc)
I don't want to purify English, I just want to point (i.e. "orden") people to looking to our rich Ur-language for inspiration--it's definitely got a lot of potential for this.
The Greco-Latin elements are still appreciated, but they are tired and wholly played out. What else is there left to borrow? Like a tired old dish-rag are Latin and Greek (yawn).
It's just for fun, but if the Anglo-Saxon based words are catchy (i.e. "fanguile"), and they are picked up in Modern English, that would be nothing new. Happens all the time (as neologisms, coinages, etc)
I don't want to purify English, I just want to point (i.e. "orden") people to looking to our rich Ur-language for inspiration--it's definitely got a lot of potential for this.
The Greco-Latin elements are still appreciated, but they are tired and wholly played out. What else is there left to borrow? Like a tired old dish-rag are Latin and Greek (yawn).
The percentage of latinantes in English will continue increasing as the anglo-saxon roots lack any prestige. That is the reason why English tends to form new terms by using Latin or Greek roots instead. Old English is still seen as a barbaric language by the educated English speakers who prefer to Latinize their language. For example among the posh English it's usual to call the toilet as "lavatory". They would laugh at your face if you proposed them to use a purer anglosaxon term like "cleaning room".
<<The percentage of latinantes in English will continue increasing as the anglo-saxon roots lack any prestige. That is the reason why English tends to form new terms by using Latin or Greek roots instead. Old English is still seen as a barbaric language by the educated English speakers who prefer to Latinize their language. For example among the posh English it's usual to call the toilet as "lavatory". They would laugh at your face if you proposed them to use a purer anglosaxon term like "cleaning room". >>
HAHA
So not true.
I'm a native English speaker. And Educated at that. "Lavatory"??? that corny old word??? HAHAHA. No one says that words anymore.
You see, my good friend, those "hoity" latinate words are falling out of favor. FAST. Many English speakers are becoming more interested in Old English and are studying it avidly.
The next step is that they begin using Old English quids ("terms") amongst themselves, which then become fixed...Same game, New Playas ;)
HAHA
So not true.
I'm a native English speaker. And Educated at that. "Lavatory"??? that corny old word??? HAHAHA. No one says that words anymore.
You see, my good friend, those "hoity" latinate words are falling out of favor. FAST. Many English speakers are becoming more interested in Old English and are studying it avidly.
The next step is that they begin using Old English quids ("terms") amongst themselves, which then become fixed...Same game, New Playas ;)
<<Old English is still seen as a barbaric language by the educated English speakers who prefer to Latinize their language.>>
What's interesting about this is that Old English/Anglo_Saxon had high register, and contained sophisticated language terms in its hayday.
The association that people have toward it being peasant, or simple is the result of it being relegated to a low station after the Norman Conquest.
Granted, most of the remaining element of A.S. in Mod. Eng. stems from the base/low register of Old English, the high and middle registers being forgotten or lost. But Old English was not a peasant's language, nor were the Anglo-Saxons uncivilized people. It's unfortunate that some still like to hold this shallow perception toward them in this way.
Prior to its subjugation, English was very refined. Probably more so than French at the time.
"Barbaric"? The Anglo-Saxons were not barbarians any more than the Gauls. They were the first germanic people to be Christianized, and then they evangelized their germanic brethren on the continent and in Scandinavia.
What's interesting about this is that Old English/Anglo_Saxon had high register, and contained sophisticated language terms in its hayday.
The association that people have toward it being peasant, or simple is the result of it being relegated to a low station after the Norman Conquest.
Granted, most of the remaining element of A.S. in Mod. Eng. stems from the base/low register of Old English, the high and middle registers being forgotten or lost. But Old English was not a peasant's language, nor were the Anglo-Saxons uncivilized people. It's unfortunate that some still like to hold this shallow perception toward them in this way.
Prior to its subjugation, English was very refined. Probably more so than French at the time.
"Barbaric"? The Anglo-Saxons were not barbarians any more than the Gauls. They were the first germanic people to be Christianized, and then they evangelized their germanic brethren on the continent and in Scandinavia.
You seem to forget the reasons why English introduced so many latinates. First off, English lacked a great amount of vocabulary, they had to call many new abstract concepts and things in some way, but nowadays that necessity is much less urgent since English has a wide vocabulary right now. Secondly, Latin and French had a lot of prestige. Back then, the English speakers were impressed by their Norman rulers who used those words and immitated them. Your purification game instead is an amusement of a few clowns, it's quite unprobable that it will open a trend in the English language evolution , and even more, such trend that it could reverse the process of Latinization that English is experiencing for centuries and centuries, which continues right now, whether you like it or not.
HAHA.
HAHA.
You see, my good friend, those "hoity" latinate words are falling out of favor. FAST. Many English speakers are becoming more interested in Old English and are studying it avidly.
Simply beacause cultural level of English speakers is falling out FASTER (and it was already in a very low level...), This would be the the proof if the lie you said were true.
Nice to hear you are going to talk like 1000 years ago! It would be interesting to know how modern words like washing machine, television, etc. would be translated in a barbarian dialect.
Keep us updated!
Simply beacause cultural level of English speakers is falling out FASTER (and it was already in a very low level...), This would be the the proof if the lie you said were true.
Nice to hear you are going to talk like 1000 years ago! It would be interesting to know how modern words like washing machine, television, etc. would be translated in a barbarian dialect.
Keep us updated!
<<You seem to forget the reasons why English introduced so many latinates. First off, English lacked a great amount of vocabulary, they had to call many new abstract concepts and things in some way,>>
LEASE (i.e. "FALSE")
except for concepts like Television, Telephone, Old English had all the words Latin and French did:
anda = envy
bewerian = protect
wealdan, ricsian = rule, govern
leas = false
andgiet = intelligence
andscyldigian = excuse
etc
<<Secondly, Latin and French had a lot of prestige. Back then, the English speakers were impressed by their Norman rulers who used those words and immitated them. >>
Latin had prestige, yes, but about 90-95% of all Latin words borrowed into Old English did not survive either. How come? They [--the Latin words] also died out after the Conquest, so people were not conscious of whether this word or that word was of such and such an origin. No one cared. They simply opened up their mouths and spoke what came naturally to them, and what others understood.
Anglo-Saxons LOATHEd their Norman rulers. They did not immitate them. Little by little words crept in, and the English found themselves noting (i.e. "using") French terms without realization. Not until the 19th century did people start to delve into the origin of words...(and boy wasn't that an overtake! (i.e. a "surprise!")
<<Your purification game instead is an amusement of a few clowns, it's quite unprobable that it will open a trend in the English language evolution , >>
Frankly, it started several hundred years ago with Shakespeare, Cheke, Orwell and others, and has been steadily increasing.
And like I said, it's not purification. It's enrichment. Enrichment from our own well.
<<and even more, such trend that it could reverse the process of Latinization that English is experiencing for centuries and centuries, which continues right now, whether you like it or not.
HAHA. >>
You're right. It was never my intent to erradicate Latin from English altogether (I like a little latin in my tea). Just to put it in its rightful place in the 21st Century (*Latin has no prestige today*). Take a look at the most common new words today. About less than half of them are borrowed from Latin or Latin roots (and I'm being very givile (i.e. "generous") here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism
And none are words that a Roman citizen would comprehend.
LEASE (i.e. "FALSE")
except for concepts like Television, Telephone, Old English had all the words Latin and French did:
anda = envy
bewerian = protect
wealdan, ricsian = rule, govern
leas = false
andgiet = intelligence
andscyldigian = excuse
etc
<<Secondly, Latin and French had a lot of prestige. Back then, the English speakers were impressed by their Norman rulers who used those words and immitated them. >>
Latin had prestige, yes, but about 90-95% of all Latin words borrowed into Old English did not survive either. How come? They [--the Latin words] also died out after the Conquest, so people were not conscious of whether this word or that word was of such and such an origin. No one cared. They simply opened up their mouths and spoke what came naturally to them, and what others understood.
Anglo-Saxons LOATHEd their Norman rulers. They did not immitate them. Little by little words crept in, and the English found themselves noting (i.e. "using") French terms without realization. Not until the 19th century did people start to delve into the origin of words...(and boy wasn't that an overtake! (i.e. a "surprise!")
<<Your purification game instead is an amusement of a few clowns, it's quite unprobable that it will open a trend in the English language evolution , >>
Frankly, it started several hundred years ago with Shakespeare, Cheke, Orwell and others, and has been steadily increasing.
And like I said, it's not purification. It's enrichment. Enrichment from our own well.
<<and even more, such trend that it could reverse the process of Latinization that English is experiencing for centuries and centuries, which continues right now, whether you like it or not.
HAHA. >>
You're right. It was never my intent to erradicate Latin from English altogether (I like a little latin in my tea). Just to put it in its rightful place in the 21st Century (*Latin has no prestige today*). Take a look at the most common new words today. About less than half of them are borrowed from Latin or Latin roots (and I'm being very givile (i.e. "generous") here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism
And none are words that a Roman citizen would comprehend.
<<Nice to hear you are going to talk like 1000 years ago! It would be interesting to know how modern words like washing machine, television, etc. would be translated in a barbarian dialect.
Keep us updated! >>
Washing Machine would blive (i.e. "remain") "washing machine" and television would blive "television"
Why change those? they work fine. I just want to enrich the theetch ("language") with otherly ("alternate") terms for greater variety.
What's wrong with that?
If I did that with Latin words, you wouldn't accast ("object")? So why do you accast now?
Keep us updated! >>
Washing Machine would blive (i.e. "remain") "washing machine" and television would blive "television"
Why change those? they work fine. I just want to enrich the theetch ("language") with otherly ("alternate") terms for greater variety.
What's wrong with that?
If I did that with Latin words, you wouldn't accast ("object")? So why do you accast now?
How does one go about learning Old English anyway? I mean, are there books or tutorials on the subject?
Anglish and Old English are not the same thing. This thread is about Anglish. Old English is very interesting to study, however.
Washing Machine would blive (i.e. "remain") "washing machine" and television would blive "television"
Why change those? they work fine.
Because they are latin words.
That's because they work fine.
But you can change them into something like:
klaehmpaaryniixsj
Handfrthjscyldiggtiaaan
I suggest you these ones. They sound so good.
Kla rethe mmthrrpph klaehmpaaryniixsj kowyj kjddaaxt? = How much this washing machine cost?
mmmhh... it sounds so good
Why change those? they work fine.
Because they are latin words.
That's because they work fine.
But you can change them into something like:
klaehmpaaryniixsj
Handfrthjscyldiggtiaaan
I suggest you these ones. They sound so good.
Kla rethe mmthrrpph klaehmpaaryniixsj kowyj kjddaaxt? = How much this washing machine cost?
mmmhh... it sounds so good
<<How does one go about learning Old English anyway? I mean, are there books or tutorials on the subject? >>
Of course there are books about Old English grammar.
The problem is that Old English is complex and difficult -- probably worse than modern Romance Languages (Spanish or French, anyway).
Of course there are books about Old English grammar.
The problem is that Old English is complex and difficult -- probably worse than modern Romance Languages (Spanish or French, anyway).