Reverting to early English, the notion is just stupid. The language is a rich, vibrant, and changing thing. Why would we want to screw with that? I think you would have quite a few pissed off poets and novelists on your hands if it was attempted.
Why do some here wish that English was linguistically pure?
I think that there are very few people who would be receptive to the idea.
Let me putgood you guys:
I think that there are very few people who would be takewell to the thinkup.
Going back to early English, the thinkround is just witslacking. The speak is a deeploaded, lifeshowing, and switching round thing. Why would we want to twist with that? I think you would have quite a few bodywatersprayed off wordspinners and longtalespinners on your hands if it was madefordo.
I think that there are very few people who would be takewell to the thinkup.
Going back to early English, the thinkround is just witslacking. The speak is a deeploaded, lifeshowing, and switching round thing. Why would we want to twist with that? I think you would have quite a few bodywatersprayed off wordspinners and longtalespinners on your hands if it was madefordo.
"very", "people", "just", "round", and "quite" are all of Latin origin and there are perhaps others I missed.
Lol, it must really pain some people in here every time they have to use a latinate word.
<<"very", "people", "just", "round", and "quite" are all of Latin origin and there are perhaps others I missed.>>
What about "guy"?
What about "guy"?
"They are just fabricated words. Latin and Greek also predate microscopes, but that didn't stop people from making up words (like 'micro-scope') to name all those things with roots from those languages.
The same can easily be done with anglo-saxon roots. "
I suppose they could call it a "small-looker".
The same can easily be done with anglo-saxon roots. "
I suppose they could call it a "small-looker".
<<What about "guy"? >>
"guy" is from the name 'Guy' which is French of non-latin origin (Germanic origin actually)
<<I suppose they could call it a "small-looker". >>
No. That is too simplistic. Anglo-Saxon roots, when you actually do your homework and study them, are equivalent to Greek and Latin words in that they are tiered.
Using 'small-looker' is equivalent to a French person using "petit-regardeur" for 'microscope', which they do not. They use 'microscope' as we do.
Therefore, an Anglo-Saxon would not say "small-looker" either. For the word, you would need to find out what the equivalent roots in Anglo-Saxon were for "micro-" and "scope".
haha "small-looker"
no wonder you're set against Anglo-Saxon roots. You're confused and need to be properly educated.
"guy" is from the name 'Guy' which is French of non-latin origin (Germanic origin actually)
<<I suppose they could call it a "small-looker". >>
No. That is too simplistic. Anglo-Saxon roots, when you actually do your homework and study them, are equivalent to Greek and Latin words in that they are tiered.
Using 'small-looker' is equivalent to a French person using "petit-regardeur" for 'microscope', which they do not. They use 'microscope' as we do.
Therefore, an Anglo-Saxon would not say "small-looker" either. For the word, you would need to find out what the equivalent roots in Anglo-Saxon were for "micro-" and "scope".
haha "small-looker"
no wonder you're set against Anglo-Saxon roots. You're confused and need to be properly educated.
<<Can someone show me how to write in an intelligent way while avoiding unnecessary Latinates? >>
Yes. Have something intelligent to say and write it.
Manytimes, English speakers and readers equate intelligence with presentation (=how it is written/spoken) rather than substance (= *what* is written /spoken)
This is a great travesty. Our language, because of the Romance influx, has leant itself to allowing mere idiots to pass as scholars simply by letting them use a lot of Latinate words.
Think about it. How do we judge whether someone or something is intelligent? By how they write/speak and the words they use. Two people could say the exact same thing (and it could be the stupidest thing at that), and we would judge the Latinate user as "intelligent" and the non-user as uneducated.
We are stupid.
Yes. Have something intelligent to say and write it.
Manytimes, English speakers and readers equate intelligence with presentation (=how it is written/spoken) rather than substance (= *what* is written /spoken)
This is a great travesty. Our language, because of the Romance influx, has leant itself to allowing mere idiots to pass as scholars simply by letting them use a lot of Latinate words.
Think about it. How do we judge whether someone or something is intelligent? By how they write/speak and the words they use. Two people could say the exact same thing (and it could be the stupidest thing at that), and we would judge the Latinate user as "intelligent" and the non-user as uneducated.
We are stupid.
Micro < Gk. Micros ("Small")
Scope < Gk. Skopein ("To look at")
Therefore it's a rough calque of the term. Similar to German Fernsehen (far-sight) which is a calque on Tele (Gk. "Far") + Vision (L. "Sight") or Fernsprechen (far-speech) for telephone, tele + phone (Gk. "Sound").
Scope < Gk. Skopein ("To look at")
Therefore it's a rough calque of the term. Similar to German Fernsehen (far-sight) which is a calque on Tele (Gk. "Far") + Vision (L. "Sight") or Fernsprechen (far-speech) for telephone, tele + phone (Gk. "Sound").
Anglo-Saxon prefixes/roots for "small":
lyt-
feawa-
(ge)headi-
(ge)wealden-
paegel-
prica-
min-
Anglo-Saxon roots for "observe":
(in)sceawian
capian
lacnian
cepan
neosan/neosian
wlatian/wlitan
Anglo-Saxon roots for "instrument"
-thor
craeft
(ge)loma
tol
lead
take any of these particles to craft a word for "microscope" using a calc of the NL word:
lytcapithor
mincapithor
minsceatol
pegelsceathor
lytsceavior
pegellator
minneosand
etc
OR you can change the construct and use the concept of "to make something look larger" by using roots for "large"/"bigger":
numol
stor
mycel/mycil
entisc
etc
This is what has been done with Greek and Latin roots. The same would have to be done with Anglo-Saxon roots.
Be creative.
lyt-
feawa-
(ge)headi-
(ge)wealden-
paegel-
prica-
min-
Anglo-Saxon roots for "observe":
(in)sceawian
capian
lacnian
cepan
neosan/neosian
wlatian/wlitan
Anglo-Saxon roots for "instrument"
-thor
craeft
(ge)loma
tol
lead
take any of these particles to craft a word for "microscope" using a calc of the NL word:
lytcapithor
mincapithor
minsceatol
pegelsceathor
lytsceavior
pegellator
minneosand
etc
OR you can change the construct and use the concept of "to make something look larger" by using roots for "large"/"bigger":
numol
stor
mycel/mycil
entisc
etc
This is what has been done with Greek and Latin roots. The same would have to be done with Anglo-Saxon roots.
Be creative.
The thing is the examples you show above illustrate just why such will not work in practice. The matter is that the vast majority of the roots that you list, even if modernized by using the forms that would be used today had they survived, are entirely foreign to the vast majority of English-speakers today (basically those without either conscious knowledge of cognates in other Germanic languages or a strong working knowledge of Old English). Hence forms constructed from such words would be far more foreign to most English-speakers today than even the most foreign-seeming Romance, Latinate, or Greek constructions that one may see in more academic writing today.
<<The matter is that the vast majority of the roots that you list, even if modernized by using the forms that would be used today had they survived, are entirely foreign to the vast majority of English-speakers today (basically those without either conscious knowledge of cognates in other Germanic languages or a strong working knowledge of Old English). >>
I disagree.
I don't know what a microscpoe is because I consciously dissect it as micro + scope. I learned the word as a chile, and LATER found out that it was constructed using the particles micro- and -scope.
In fact, these suffixes didn't enter English as suffixes, but as inseperable parts of words first. It was not until after so many of them had acculmulated in English that we began to see a pattern--that 'micro-' = "small". (cf. re-ceive)
I disagree.
I don't know what a microscpoe is because I consciously dissect it as micro + scope. I learned the word as a chile, and LATER found out that it was constructed using the particles micro- and -scope.
In fact, these suffixes didn't enter English as suffixes, but as inseperable parts of words first. It was not until after so many of them had acculmulated in English that we began to see a pattern--that 'micro-' = "small". (cf. re-ceive)