I suppose this purification effort has about as much chance of catching on as radical spelling reform.
Pure english
"Oh my god what mongoloids. This 'pure english' look like it was written by a brain dead person. "
That's why they want a mongoloid language
That's why they want a mongoloid language
America is the greatest nation on Earth ........
In terms of idiocy I have not any objection
In terms of idiocy I have not any objection
Josh & Brennus : pourriez-vous déplacer ce salon dans la section monolingue svp ?
<<<<When leed (i.e. 'people') say "English", they are endbearing (i.e. 'referring') to the inborn or inlandish (i.e. 'native') words of the English theetch ('language').
Amemmor ('remember'), English endstood ('existed') as a tingue ('language') alleipily ('seperately') on its own before it was begnidden ('impacted') by y'Latinode ('Latinate') words and quids ('terms' or expressions') of frempt ('strange') and eltheedish ('foreign') orspraint ('origin').
inwitsarful upcast... ('intriguing topic...')>>
How are those words even English? They're definitely not found in English dictionaries, so I'd like to know on what grounds you consider those words more pure than normal English. >>>>
-----
These words are revived words in English (from older stages of the English language, or adapted forms from them). Latin words in English came into our language in the exact same way as those--by someone "slipping" them in just like I just did.
'leed' < ME leed, lede "people" < OE leod - people
'endbearing' < endbear ("carry back [to]") < end- (<OE and- "back, against) + bear "carry"
Amemmor < OE amimorian - to remember < a- + mimorian
etc etc
I am all for increasing the true "English" element of our language, to around 75-80% of our words, but for me, English doesn't have to be 100% "PURE" (honestly, no language really is)
One thing I've noticed about purification attempts and efforts which really bothers me is that the words they come up with really ARE dumbed-down (i.e. just plain Dumb) sounding: "uncleft"? "kernel"??? I'd rather use the Latinate words to those.
The trick however is this--we don't have to use dumb versions of English to make it purer English. We can use Anglo-Saxon roots and have them not be so dumb sounding. (the trick here is root-DISassociation: "atom" sounds good because in Modern English you don't recognize "a-" + "-tom-" as component parts like you do in "un-" + "-cleft".
"-tom" doesn't mean anything in English *by itself*. That (as with many latinate words as well) lends so much an air of mystery and elevation to the words that doesn't necessarily exist in the original language (eg. in French, 'degré' sounds to them like 'of-step'/'from-step' would sound to us--nothing special right? because they can quickly see "de-" ("from") + gré ("step")). That's what makes "uncleft" sound so simplistic.)
Therefore, in order to attain the same level of word for 'atom', you have to use components that are "special" or "reserved", even in Old English, and most likely, borrow them directly from Old English in their Old English form: "aesceadon" (<aesceaden - "undivided" < ae- (without) + sceadan - to divide, separate). You have to give it an educated look and feel for people to accept it. We need words like these--special words, rare words.
That said, I do NOT believe that those words *have* to be of Graeco-Latin derivation. They can be of SWAHILI origin for that matter. But I would forechoose ("prefer") that they be our own. We can turn the tide for English if we want to. It is our language.
Amemmor ('remember'), English endstood ('existed') as a tingue ('language') alleipily ('seperately') on its own before it was begnidden ('impacted') by y'Latinode ('Latinate') words and quids ('terms' or expressions') of frempt ('strange') and eltheedish ('foreign') orspraint ('origin').
inwitsarful upcast... ('intriguing topic...')>>
How are those words even English? They're definitely not found in English dictionaries, so I'd like to know on what grounds you consider those words more pure than normal English. >>>>
-----
These words are revived words in English (from older stages of the English language, or adapted forms from them). Latin words in English came into our language in the exact same way as those--by someone "slipping" them in just like I just did.
'leed' < ME leed, lede "people" < OE leod - people
'endbearing' < endbear ("carry back [to]") < end- (<OE and- "back, against) + bear "carry"
Amemmor < OE amimorian - to remember < a- + mimorian
etc etc
I am all for increasing the true "English" element of our language, to around 75-80% of our words, but for me, English doesn't have to be 100% "PURE" (honestly, no language really is)
One thing I've noticed about purification attempts and efforts which really bothers me is that the words they come up with really ARE dumbed-down (i.e. just plain Dumb) sounding: "uncleft"? "kernel"??? I'd rather use the Latinate words to those.
The trick however is this--we don't have to use dumb versions of English to make it purer English. We can use Anglo-Saxon roots and have them not be so dumb sounding. (the trick here is root-DISassociation: "atom" sounds good because in Modern English you don't recognize "a-" + "-tom-" as component parts like you do in "un-" + "-cleft".
"-tom" doesn't mean anything in English *by itself*. That (as with many latinate words as well) lends so much an air of mystery and elevation to the words that doesn't necessarily exist in the original language (eg. in French, 'degré' sounds to them like 'of-step'/'from-step' would sound to us--nothing special right? because they can quickly see "de-" ("from") + gré ("step")). That's what makes "uncleft" sound so simplistic.)
Therefore, in order to attain the same level of word for 'atom', you have to use components that are "special" or "reserved", even in Old English, and most likely, borrow them directly from Old English in their Old English form: "aesceadon" (<aesceaden - "undivided" < ae- (without) + sceadan - to divide, separate). You have to give it an educated look and feel for people to accept it. We need words like these--special words, rare words.
That said, I do NOT believe that those words *have* to be of Graeco-Latin derivation. They can be of SWAHILI origin for that matter. But I would forechoose ("prefer") that they be our own. We can turn the tide for English if we want to. It is our language.
Assume the reality, English is a bastard language whose vocabulary stems mainly from Latin and French, instead of the languages of its same linguistic family. Yo can't change it and never will. Even more, I think that it would be much easier to Latinize English completely , for example, you can start changing the prepositions:
of: de
to: verso
on, in: they are quite similar to latin and french already.
...
personal pronouns:
I: Io
you: tou
he: hel
she: esha (like the argentinian pronunciation of ella)
we: nos
you: vos
they: thellos
And so on. You only have to do minor tweaks and will have a nice Romanglish .
of: de
to: verso
on, in: they are quite similar to latin and french already.
...
personal pronouns:
I: Io
you: tou
he: hel
she: esha (like the argentinian pronunciation of ella)
we: nos
you: vos
they: thellos
And so on. You only have to do minor tweaks and will have a nice Romanglish .
Oops, I mean "greg" and K.T. -- we mustn't capitalise the first letter of the Frenchman's name...
<<Only Greg and K. T...>>
Are they dating? I guess greg must give in and abandon the French -- I mean french -- and speak in Spanish to K.T. at this point?
Are they dating? I guess greg must give in and abandon the French -- I mean french -- and speak in Spanish to K.T. at this point?
<<Assume the reality, English is a bastard language whose vocabulary stems mainly from Latin and French, instead of the languages of its same linguistic family.>>
That's a Lie...
<<Yo can't change it and never will. Even more, I think that it would be much easier to Latinize English completely , for example, you can start changing the prepositions:
>>
That's a gainsegue (i.e. "contradiction"). First you say it cannot be wrixled (i.e. "changed"), then you allithe ("proceed") to give upwhirfts ("suggestions") on how to make it more Spanish.
sweet ("sweet")
That's a Lie...
<<Yo can't change it and never will. Even more, I think that it would be much easier to Latinize English completely , for example, you can start changing the prepositions:
>>
That's a gainsegue (i.e. "contradiction"). First you say it cannot be wrixled (i.e. "changed"), then you allithe ("proceed") to give upwhirfts ("suggestions") on how to make it more Spanish.
sweet ("sweet")
<<You have to admit that English always was a language of peasants >>
You could say the same about french. What we now know today as french, came from the simplified vernakular speech developed by the uneducated masses in the gaulish region of the former roman empire; it was the nasalized vulgar latin dialect of peasants. Up untill as late as the 1500s all scholarship at universities was taught in latin and the vernakular speech of the lower classes was not recognized or even written down.
The prestige associated with french didnt come untill france dropped latin, adopted the language of the common people for administration/educational purposes, and become a leading power of europe.
You could say the same about french. What we now know today as french, came from the simplified vernakular speech developed by the uneducated masses in the gaulish region of the former roman empire; it was the nasalized vulgar latin dialect of peasants. Up untill as late as the 1500s all scholarship at universities was taught in latin and the vernakular speech of the lower classes was not recognized or even written down.
The prestige associated with french didnt come untill france dropped latin, adopted the language of the common people for administration/educational purposes, and become a leading power of europe.
<<The prestige associated with french didnt come untill france dropped latin, adopted the language of the common people for administration/educational purposes, and become a leading power of europe. >>
And the concept of French as a language is in fact, well, ENGLISH.
The English (Anglo-Norman) athols ("nobles") were the first to think of the vernacular languages spoken in Gaul as an endom ("unity") of languages labeled "French", so their selfdom (i.e. their "identity") is owed to us.
And the concept of French as a language is in fact, well, ENGLISH.
The English (Anglo-Norman) athols ("nobles") were the first to think of the vernacular languages spoken in Gaul as an endom ("unity") of languages labeled "French", so their selfdom (i.e. their "identity") is owed to us.