“Anglish”

Prime Minister >>> High Overseer?; I've never like "minister" as the name for this job. Seems too church-like.

Chancellor >> Ombudsman, Marshal, Warden? CHIEF is from Old French chef...so, maybe 'Head Steward'? One could say 'Head Seneschal' (a good Teutonic word), but steward and reeve are about the same.

Reason(s)...could also be 'whatfor' and 'whyfor'; TO REASON >>> think through, work out, thresh out, gather, draw from, think, and so on.

birr from OE byre: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/birr

force, vigor, energy
a strong wind.
the force of the wind; rush, impetus, momentum, driving force
a thrust or push
a whirring noise

---
resung, ræswung f. - reasoning, conjecture
ræswa m. - leader, counsellor, ruler, guide: chief, prince, king.
ræswan, ræswian - to think, consider, conjecture, suspect
ræswum dp. of *ræs or ræsu f. or *ræswa - suggestion, deliberation, counsel

so reason would be likely be ræs >>> reas ... dat rease, dat pl reasum ... Norman scribes didn't like u before m ... reasom ... then we're back to reason.

ræswa / ræswan, ræswian/ rǣsian, rēsian/ ræswum/ rēsung, rǣswung < PGmc. *rēswanan “to think, reckon, calculate” ; akin to Gothic raþjo, OHG reda, redī, O.E. rǣs (PGmc. *rēswō/*rēswô “counsel, reckoning”); ON ræsir “leader, chief, king, prince” .

It would seem that the New English ("modern") word REASON may be a blending of Anglo-Norman raisun and the Germanic that was already being said in English. The two words are not akin at the PIE roots. It is thought that Anglo-French raisun is from PIE *reh₁- “to put in order”, and the Teutonic English rǣsian (and the other shapes) is from PIE *rei- “to reason, count”.

So, this is another showing that one cannot take words as Latin-French owing to the telltales of "classical scholars". Keep in mind, they are brain-washed; they believe that English is low-brow, and that it is unlikely that "Anglo-Saxons" could've had such loft thoughts, much less words for them.

These "scholars" thoughts on this look to be everyday more and more wrong-headed, untrue drollery and thoughtless foolishness.

I came up with "High-Reeve" because it is still brooked in some states of Canada I think, for the State-Governor perhaps.
I was quite taken aback to find out that "reason" and "seneschal" were sort of germanic in origin. I would have guessed N. Fr. !x
"Marshal" is still a rank in the Brit armed forces esp Field-Marshal, so perhaps it would be better left out of the lawmakers' ranks.
"T... to be everyday more and more wrong-headed,.."
s.b. "to be more and more wrong-headed everyday" - we like the object/complement to follow immediately after the verb in English. (Otherwise: excellent!!)

"seneschal"... sort of germanic in origin"

Not sort of...it is >> indeed, it came through Old French, but from Frankish siniscalc,< PGmc. *sini- “senior” + PGmc. *skalk “servant”, much like marshal.

And, thanks for the help!

By the way there is one setting where we do put something between the doing-word and the object/complement: there is a short list of how-often words which usually come (1) between subject and verb, or (2) after the helping-verb. [never, hardly, ever, sometimes, usually, often, always]. These how-often-words also come after the verb "to be" when brooked as a main verb followed by a complement. (3) This stead in the word-order hight "middle-stead".
So we say:
(1) "She always dresses well."
(2) "She is always dressed well"
(3) "She is always well-dressed"
However "everyday" is not a how-often-word; it is an adjective. "every day" (two words) does tell us how often; but it is two words and as cannot be pushed into the middle-stead.
So at last:
"They seem to be ever more and more wrong-headed" is okay as "ever" is on the shortlist.
"They seem to be more and more wrong-headed every day" is okay too.
Such is today's English word order. One could wish for something straightforwarder.

There are sundry words that I believe to be either truly of OE roots or a blend of OE and French/Latin but I can't prove it. For byspel, tally is said to be from French/Latin ... yet in OE we tal/tæl meaning number/a number of; talian meaning to count; and sundry kennings such as tælcræft meaning arithmetic.

@Ængelfolc ... etym frain for yu. Siker ... German sicher from OHG sichur ... is said to come from Latin securus. Is this right? No PIE root is given.

AnWulf:

To my knowledge, German sicher, Dutch zeker, O.E. sicor, O.Sax sikur, M.E. siker (still might be said in Northern English and Scottish), are all from the L. sêcûrus (as are the doublets sure and secure).

King Alfred's Ænglisc Cura Pastoralis was written about 890, in which O.E. sicor is written once. O.E. sicor (although coming from Latin) could be thought of as a likely sidelong loan from Old Saxon sikur owing to how it is said and written.

Anyway, this word was borrowed by the Germanic folks way before 450 A.D., or as Friedrich Kluge and Frederick Lutz put it, sicor was "borrowed during the first centuries of the Christian era." It is thought to be one of the roughly 170 or so "Continental" borrowings, like cheese and wine.

Sorry, this one seems true.

My biggest problem presently is with the OED's interminable idiocy in discounting words that weren't in English by the 12th Century. If English is counted as an extant language, or living tongue, from the point of conception - then why does the OED have the audacity to discount 700 years of its vocabulary? No other language does this as far as I'm aware. Being English, I also take issue with those of my landsmen who seem to proclaim the hypocritical view of Alfred the Great as true king of the English but only consider viewing their country's characteristics and mannerisms as being of worth if hailing from post-Norman conquest England.

Oh, read something in one of the earlier comments about the fact that certain words of English originally came from Low German of Latin origin - that's no problem at all - seeing as English should only be counting words from its own beginnings, and not those borrowings from before it was conceived. Otherwise it would be as mad as a Frenchman taking umbrage with the Romans for taking Germanic words into Latin before French came into being.

Re the last post... I obviously meant '' ...from the 12th Century onwards'' and not ''by''.

@Gallitrot ... I'm not a subscriber to the OED so I can't see their whole unabridged wordbook ... I'v been told that it is about 20 volumes. But sometimes yu get a little gem like maegth/mægth ... http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/115332 ... If you type it the search box, it doesn't show. It's one that yu must know the entry number for.

I can understand why Old English/Anglo-Saxon words wouldn't show up in a desktop wordbook. The whole orthography of OE/AS is very different than nowadays English ... And if yu add in the changes in pronunciations from the early migration to the Late West Saxon dialects ... it becomes a true headache.

What I find disappointing is not only how many are hidden behind the subscription wall but that a search doesn't tell yu that. At last if the word stands behind the subscription wall at M-W, it asks yu to subscribe.

Likely, yu'll find more at wiktionary. It lists not only New English, but Middle English, and Old English words as well. It is still growing. Hardly a day goes by that I don't make at least one entry of some kind. Aside from wiktionary, there are other sources for OE and ME words.

Wiktionary isn't eath to browse but it does nicely break down into a lot categories ... Want to kno the be- words? Or the ge- words in English? Then look at the categories.

My cutoff is 1066 ... If a Latinate was in English before the Takeover, then I'm good with it. There aren't that many.

Old English fædera "paternal uncle" (see German Vetter)

Old English ēam "maternal uncle" (see German Ohm, Oheim)

These are great words that are straight forward. Saying "uncle" always needs more to be understood-- "my uncle, my mom's brother", and so forth.

At least, I think the Scots still say eme.

AnWulf: I am with you. Latin before 1066 is good with me. The words came into English without having to strong arm the folks with "class and academic" puff and aloofness.

I will definitely start paying more attention to Wiktionary, as I believe only a full compilation of English words from the 450s through to today can truly be deemed a fair lexical choice for the native speaking masses, especially the century of vocabulary before Hastings. I've been very lucky to have correspondence with David Cowley who has, hallows be thanked, given us the Old English update manual '' How We'd Talk If The English Had Won In 1066 '' and ''Words We'd Wield If We'd Won'' . With steering-texts such as his, then it may just be possible to re-imbue our mother tongue with some of its own core wordstock and replace and instead needless and confusing examples of sesquipedalianism :/

@Anwulf I'm utterly at one with you over the Latinish words of before 1066, though there weren't many when likening to today's Latin-sated English, the church wasn't averse in borrowing words when it wanted. To be fair, I'm not the slightest bit worried about Norman French words that do a useful job, or provide a useful doublet that ord-English or core English wouldn't have given us alonestanding. But I reserve the right as a native speaker to be able to linguistically make that choice for myself. If think a foreign word is clouding the issue, or complicating a simple matter, then I should have the right to cast it aside for one that is just as eath and even clearer to understand from our native stock.

sesquipedalianism < Latin sēsquipedālis measuring a foot and a half = (E.) one and a half foot long words, words that are way too long. This is a word that must go!

So, academicians, politicians, and know-it-all's are all guilty of "Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness"? Yikes!!! Are they any drugs (< Dutch droog) for this? ;-)

I, too, am okay with some Anglo-Norman/ Norma-French words, since many are from Frankish and Norse anyway. The Normans took many Teutonic words and gave them new meanings to fit whatever thing they needed it for.

Hey Aenglefolc,

There are a couple of drugs out there for sepsqui...idibiddihibbiddy...doodah...... oh sod it, but I find this one for a few pounds taken at least twice a day helps just fine ;)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hastings-1066-Words-Wed-Wield/dp/0755213769/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329084247&sr=8-1

Norman French really did borrow vastly from germanic sources, specifically Old Norse as this little weblink beautifully beshows:

http://viking.no/e/france/norman_on_words.htm

averse >> shy, unwilling, against, loath, wavering, and so on.

sated >> stuffed, soaked, overfilled, stodged (S.English), asf.

useful >> handy, helpful, fitting, befitting, and so forth.

provide >> give, bestow, outfit, and others.

complicate >> muddle, muck up, addle, befuddle, darken, mislead, and many more.

reserve >> keep, (with)hold

native >> inborn, first

Gallitrot: LOL!

"useful >> handy, helpful, fitting, befitting, and so forth." I forgot fremeful!!!

Bringing a word forward from Middle English isn't too hard. Jumping back to Old English is a little trickier at times owing to orthography. ME has its own problems in that spellings were all over the place. Thus one would find wode and wood swapped at will even tho they hav greatly sunder meanings! They were unbecloudy in OE but not in ME and the spellings are still befuddled. To wax wode and to wax wood are not even near.

Old meanings are often lost. For byspel, folks don't kno that "to brook" means "to use" or "to note"/"to benote" also means "to use". They think that manship is a synonym for manhood ... and they note it that way. Only this morning I updated the wiktionary entry for manship to inhold the older, lost meanings as well.

Yesterday I dithered over whether to use "ingang" when I was writing a narrativ. Ingang is still in play in nowadays English but is mostly unknown.

I latch flak almost everyday from someone since I do note this words ... that and my freespelling! lol

If yu want some of these words to come back into noting, then yu hav to note them every day til they become twoth (second) nature.

Yeah, if we could alone put back or popularise ME words then that would be a great seyer (victory) in itself. Then I would seriously swap 'getting on my high horse' for 'mounting my pony'. The problem using off the wall spelling, and too many, unusual words all in one fell swoop is that folk tend to view you as being a little moon-addled. But personally, i think 'ingang' rocks!

Sig (victory) - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sig ... from ME sige http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sige (He sige hælde. — Aelfric's Treatise on the Old Testament, 1175).

Yes, yu can't throw too much out at one time. Most of my free spelling is eath-seen ... hav=have, altho, tho, thru, enuff, asf ... is noting words like brook/benote/note or byspel for example that throws them ... then acknow for recognize and a few others.

Cowley offers 'seyer' as an update, as the 'g' was a 'y' sound in that position. The problem with writing 'sig' is that most modern English speakers would pronounce it as that.

Cowley also offers ' forbus' as an updated replacement for ' for example' is 'by spel' testified as an Old English variant or is it based on the calque ' zum Beispiel' ?

Followed that link, interesting, I can accept that the word might have updated as 'sye' or even 'sey'... very possible that the -er ending wouldn't have lived on into modern times.

Do you know what, I like 'sye' so much I've entered it into the Anglish word book... Cheers Anwulf.

byspel http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/byspel ... forbus? I'v seen it in wiktionary but it has no references and I can't find it in the MED nor can I find the OE word it supposedly comes from. No byspels are given of its brooking. They may stand but I haven't seen them.

In OE, example was bīspel (byspel) and bīsen(e) (bisen/bysen ...by seen). I started out noting bysen but swapped to byspel since it is a cognate with Ger. Beispiel. ... My only problem is that I want to say zum Beispiel insted for byspel! lol

The "g" was a "y" in the Late West Saxon dialect before "e" or "i" ... often but not always ... And not always in the other major dialects either. The LWS was likely the softest of the sundry dialects. But there are byspels of a hard "g" before these vowels ... after all, we hav beget (OE begietan) and forget (OE forgietan) ... we still hav gebur and gemot/gemote/gemoot all with a hard "g". Furthermore, we hav a slew of German loanwords with a hard "ge-". I'v even seen "gefrain" (reputation) being brooked. So regardless of how the LWS might hav said the word, we get to pick.

With OE and early ME words, yu can stay true (or truer) to the spelling or the perceived Late West Saxon dialect ... but yu often can't do both. As for me, I'll take the spellings with the hard 'g'. Many of the words lost the ge- forefast owing to that it was soft so if yu go with to the 'y' lude (sound) then yu'r making the same mistake again. Truly, I don't understand this fascination with wanting to edquicken the Late West Saxon ludes. Aside from that ... "sig" is a standing word. There's no need to offer up a created word. ... For sig, I might hav gone with "sige" and a hard "g" but there was no need since "sig" is already there ... and it is said with a hard "g". It sounds like Ger. Sieg ... If I were choosing the spelling, I'd likely go with seeg but again, the word is alreddy there ... it is what it is.

Cowley, does indeed give 'busen' as another option, pronounced ' bizzen', I suppose it must mimic 'busy' in some way.

I take your point on the whole West Saxon malarky, but modern English grew out of Anglian/ Mercian Dialects and not West Saxon. I was also taught 'forforgietan' was ' foryeet'n' in Old West Saxon and had some Norse influence over the 'g' sound, thus we have 'yet' and 'get', 'yes' and 'guess' and likely a load more - ok, I also accept that a large amount of Anglian speakers probably found Norse dialects mutually intelligible. I don't quite buy into the idea that Bernard Cornwell puts forward in his Saxon chronicles that a Northumbrian would have effortlessly spoken with a West Saxon, and found Danish a complete conundrum ( especially when the originating Anglian dialects lived side by side their Norse kindreds in Northern Germany way before migration)... seems Cornwell may have been writing for a North American audience with no typographical knowledge of England and Northern Europe....but anyway I seriously digress :/

I still think despite your valid points and no doubt justifiable grounds for sundry spelling, that your method can only sway followers to re-use true English words if they have all the kit and trappings of an historical linguist. I think we're on the same page regarding the reintroduction or popularisation of OE words in a modern framework, but confusing the issue with odd spelling convention snubs within the average English speaker any kindling of their empathy towards their own native words.

BTW, can't find any record of Sig in modern or early modern English, never mind the elongated 'e' sound therein.

Sorry, let me qualify my last statement... can't find any verification of 'sig' in any other word list compilation outside of Wiktionary.

Just been checking up on Mr S Wodening, I know he is quoted in Wiktionary for the word 'sig' but what are his sources? As the ME spelling would almost undeniably have been pronounced along the lines of 'seeya', I find it very difficult to feel at one with his heathen writings (not from any religious bent I may add) because he wheels about betwixt modern English and Anglo- Saxon words, then it seems he updates a few words by his own wont.

Maybe I'm being overly harsh, but I see no evidence for his peculiar pronunciation or spelling of 'sig' , and believe me if I was am convinced then I'd most definitely take the extant word on board, and drop the idea of 'sye' or 'seyer'.

Gallitrot:

O.E. siġe was written with a yogh (ȝ) as siȝe in Mid.E. See page 547 in "A Middle-English dictionary: containing words used by English writers from the Twelfth to the Fifteenth century" by Francis Henry Stratmann, revised by Henry Bradley. The word is also found in the Middle English poem, Layamon's Brut.

The word is also found in many Teutonic-English names. As for why it was forsaken, or when, I do not rightly know. I'll have to do some digging!

Yeah, cheers Aengelfolc, I'm well aware of the yogh, just can't be arsed seeking out the symbol everytime I want to write 'sige' ;) But my frain wasn't concerning sige, it is the significance of the word 'sig' which was given. Like I said, I'd be happier using 'sye' from 'sige', rather than Cowley's 'seyer' from 'sigor', now that I know of its existence.

Regarding the forsaking of 'sige' , you know how it goes, a whole clump of jumped up pompous idiots 'tween the 14th and 17th Centuries all extolling the virtues of 'victory' from some antiquated Latin word, not to mention its neat -y suffix making it eath to rhyme it in ditties and in flattering court song when supposedly professing the 'great victories' of some arrogant Norman tw*t of a king.

2005, Diana L. Paxson, “Taking Up The Runes" page 172:
The Anglo-Saxon journey charm adapted for the ritual invokes "sig" power for every aspect of existence. / It is unfortunate that all the words surviving in English that could be used to translate sig have Latin roots, for it would seem that in the original languages, sig may have had connotations that are not present in words like "triumph" and "victory."

-
While the pronunciation should be seeg ... most folks will say sǐg ... like fig. I'm ok with that. There's a story behind the etymology of the nowadays "sig" it's not straight from OE sige which is why the pronunciation should be seeg like German Sieg. But nowadays orthography being what it is, English speakers will lean towards sig like fig if they don't know and most won't. Not a big deal to me.

I like the OE sige and sigor ... I think sigor would hav been the easier one to bring forward had it been needed. But I wontedly choose a standing word over edquickening an old one or making one up. Sig stands. So for me, sig it is!

At Ængelfolc ... Sige, siᵹe, and sy are found in ME. ... Seo streongðe & se *sige* wearð þæs cynges.
Machabeus..oferwan his feond, & beð for þi isette his *sigefesta* (victorious) dæda on ðam bocum on bibliothecan Gode to wurðmente.

The problem with the g (and the c) is that they hav had to do twofold work from the beginning. Even in New English, they're problems. Is the g hard as in get or soft as in general? Is the c hard as in can or soft as in Caesar? Without recorded media, how would folks from 1,000 years from now kno? So for the words that didn't make it to NE, we can't say with 100% gewiss that we kno how it would be said. It's a best guess.

But for our needs, I don't think it truly matters how the Saxons said it since we're not going to speaking with Saxons and so many other words hav changed over the years. The pronunciation for maegth (mægþ) in the OED is sunder than than the Saxon way ( Brit. /magθ/, /meɪθ/, U.S. /mægθ/, /meɪθ/). So even tho mægen is now main ... there's no reasum why we can't make a doublet out it by edquickening mægen as maegen (said like the name Maegen) for the word power (which is what it meant in OE!).

I see no good grounds why sye and sig couldn't be used interchangeably or with slight variances in meaning. The main problem we face with all reintroductions is making the words trendy enough to catch on, and finding a universal spelling that can be agreed upon and adhered to. As daft as it may be, but Americans and British are never going to unify their spelling in words we already have because the differences emblazon nationalistic traits that each nation's folkhood are loath to yield to - so forever we're to be tortured with color and colour... that's where German really has done itself a lot of favours by standardising sounds to set combinations of letters, aside from them pishing about with the Rechtschreibung every few years, that is, but otherwise a great boon.

Actually, guys, if you were to suggest an updated spelling for 'sigor' what would it be?

If yu want to note sigor, why change the spelling? Note it as is.

Anent color ... while color is a Latinate, the "colour" spelling is from Old French. Every time one notes "colour", one is giving homage to the French.

1824, A Complete and Universal English Dictionary, p814
SIG, used in compounds, is derived from sig, victory. Sax. Thus Sigward implies a victorious preserver.

1826, Etymons of English Words, p195
SIG, in forming the names of great warriors, … S. sig, victory, a victorious man; as Sigismund, protector of victory; Sigward, warden of conquest; Sigard, victorious disposition

Using the word 'color' or 'colour' is a nod to the French, full stop - as they're both variants from the same language just with different spelling chronology. And let's be honest, I'm hardly going to use the Webster's spelling dictates am I?! XD

... better to use 'hue'.

Actually, you might have struck upon something there. SIGOR has lovely little mnemonics about its spelling which remind people of the word 'victORy', and 'victOR' plus in the form sigor then no one in Britain would think of the oft used abbreviation 'cig' for a cigarette, which naturally is a baneful homophone next to 'sig'

Almost always it is better to note a standing word ... even an old one (I call them old-logisms when folks ask me). At least you can giv them a link. If yu point them to the Anglish Moot ... they'll just say that yu're making words up and that it is nothing more than a con-lang (constructed language) like Klingon. (Even Qapla' has earned an entry.)

So if yu like "sigor" ... then go forth and benote it! Qapla'!

I know where you're coming from with the made up words accusations scenario. However, I do think a fair amount of the old spelling in Old English would have to be updated for the word to be accessible in its edquickening phase. Sure, sigor isn't such a problem and would be easy to get the mouth round. But I know for a fact since a friend asked me how to pronounce ''thegn'' that he sounded like a right numpty trying ''theggin, theegna'' etc... Anglish may be open to accusations of being a 'made up' tongue, however it leaves itself wide open as all kinds of folk use hybrid German, Dutch, Swedish words...plus the director of the site doesn't even see Anglish as a gateway to the resurrection of original native words. I seem to recall it being written somewhere that the site was purely a social experiment. Lame! is what I say, frigging lame!

Far be it from me to weigh in here but ...
1) Sieg is perhaps better known than "sigor' ... try googling it... though to be fair it has a dark side to it.
2) Who is Ed? "edquikened??" However most people would understand "re-quickened".
I think you need to use words that are still in "the dictionary" to be understood by all and sundry. Otherwise it will all be gibberish.

Hey Jayles, wade in by all means...

Ed- is the correct Old English form of re- which is from French... and because they're both two letters long then you're not losing brevity in the process of shifting one to the other. And anyway, every new word or reintroduction if you will has a certain amount of 'gibberish' factor till it catches on, for instance in the last 10-20 yrs 'earworm', 'bling', 'google' all unintelligible to people before widely trending and becoming part of everyday speech. So 'edquicken' can happily run alongside 'enliven' 'reinvigorate' 'resurrect' etc till it either does or doesnt catch on. For me that's the beauty and eathness of this new fangled t'interweb witchcraft ;)

@ jayles ... 1.) Yes, sieg is far better known, but, as yu said, it has a dark side and it has the befuddling orthography ... does "ie" = "ee" or a 'ī' as in tie? That is why I would spell it as seeg. However, the word "sig" stands. I think "sigor" would be a good fit for "victor".

2.) True. But then folks understand victory and not sig. In that line of thinking, wh bother at all since folks understand the Latinates. The forefast "ed-" was unneededily besteaded by the Latin forefast "re-" in many words, to inhold edquicken:

edcwic (adjectiv) - revived, restored to life (edquick)
edcwician (verb) - to re-quicken, revive (edquicken)

3.) I yeasay. It's much better when one can link to a wordbook.

@Gallitrot ... That's why I note the spelling thane. The sometimes g=y of OE orthography is mostly unknown to most English speakers today so they see "thegn" and are befuddled. They're not sure if the g is serving to mark the vowel long as in sigh or if the g should be said in a consonant cluster or both ... which is why yur friend tried theegn. BTW, thein/þein is found in ME would be better than thegn to help folks say the word (or theyn) if not for thane. However, writers like thegn and it keeps popping up every now and then.

In other cases, the edquickened word is said with a hard g ... like gemoot.

Sigor >> Danish Sejr >> Norwegian Seier >> Old English siġe (said, "/ˈsije/) >> So, why not write Seyer, Sieyer, Syer, Siyer or something like this? Unless... the yogh (ȝ) could come back, which could be written for y (/j/); it is from the Old English 'g' (Gyfu rune) after all. Well, I guess it could be mistaken for a small 'z', too.

Both gyfu and Latin g in Old English were said /j/ before "sung-bookstaves" (vowels) in the first stead > "year" was written as 'gear'; if was ȝif, and ear was ȝhere. It was the Old Norse sway that muddled the g (/j/) and g (/g/) in English, which made the way for hard g and y.

The yogh was a ME staf. Don't assume that the LWS dialect was standard. It wasn't ... otherwise we wouldn't hav some words that gainsay this "rule" about "g" = "y" before "e" or "i" or "c" = "ch" before or after "e" or "i". Nonetheless, there is no reasum to be beholden to a pronunciation that has died out. Many times one can be truthful to the spelling or the LWS dialect, but not both (sometimes neither) ... in those times which is better? I go with the spelling when I can do so ... anfaldly (simply) owing to the word is in the wordbook and I can give the link.

AFAIK, seyer doesn't stand aside from a book like Cowley's or maybe on the Anglish Moot (AM). As I said, if yu link to the AM, folks will say that yu'r making it up. If yu link to Wiktionary or to an OE (or ME) wordbook, then all they can say is that it is archaic or obsolete. Seyer looks nothing like its root ... it looks like someone pulled it out of thin air ... might as well note qapla'! (More folks kno that word!)

@Anwulf, I appreciate your example of 'qapla' being used as a just argument for not using made up words, but falls down on one key point. Klingon is an entirely fabricated language! Whereas 'Anewed English' , if you will, is based wholly on real words used by real folk. It serves only to update and surmise the pronunciation outcome of a wordhoard that has been neglected, ousted and fallen out of use for nearly 1000yrs. It also only attempts transduce the old shrift form into a widely intelligible Latin based one that native speakers can access. The learning of Klingon will always remain a whimsical social exercise with no other purpose for learning it than that of fan-dom. It cannot (unlike Old English based words) reconstruct, benefit, befit or behoove English cultural ideas of language identity or the sad fact wrongs done our tongue by 300years of tyrannical usurpation.

*sad wrongs done our tongue...

I'm with Aengelfolc on this one, updating is necessary for the mammoth task of again flooding English with fremeful and useful words of native stock. Of course, we should concentrate on the resurrection of words lost in the late ME and EME periods, as their spellings require little reshaping. Y/ G for Yogh spellings are irrelevant at present, as we're stuck with an internationally recognised Latin structured alphabet, though, in time I believe Eth and Thorn would be highly useful additions as they offer nice clarification concerning pronunciation differences in words like 'think' and 'these', and would save me a fortune on SMS message abbreviation. The crux of the issue still remains the meeting of like minds determined to edquicken the unnecessary loss of wordhoard over the ages.

Interesting writing about yogh http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A22808243

I am all for eth (Ð, ð) and thorn (Þ, þ) coming back into English: þey rightfully belong þere.

BTW, I did not know what "qapla" meant until Gallitrot wrote that it is a word from "Klingon".

anfaldly

Thinking about onefold, it seems to me that 'manifold' is a great English word that doesn't get enough work! It is a wonderful "catchall", I think.

numerous = manifold
varied = manifold
comprehensive = manifold

And so on...

Regarding eth and thorn, I agree: they should be restored (ednewed?). In fact, I think that they should stand for separate sounds: eth standing for the 'hard' th-sound (z.B. 'these') and thorn standing for the 'soft' th-sound (z.B. 'things'). I think Icelandic does things that way.

Another possibility is to follow Tolkien's example. Tolkien, in his Elvish languages, used 'th' for the 'soft' th-sound, and 'dh' for the 'hard' th-sound.

comprehensive ->> all-enfolding,
or perhaps "sweeping"
re spelling: several attempts at reforming spelling have been made; only the "American" spellings have stuck. Even the Germans rose up against spelling changes.

@Jayles, the Germans only got p*ssed off with the Rechtschreibung 'cause it was coming in too thick and fast. A few years ago, German said to me 'wow, you know the spelling reforms better than I '' that does not bode well for any reform when the natives don't get it.
The American spellings were only successful 'in part' because Webster fortuitously lived around the time of post independent patriotism. I actually think more of his spelling reforms would have had greater effect if he'd stuck to the words where it bore out that pronunciation was indeed no way affected by lobbing off the odd U here and there. Unfortunately, he got a bee in his bonnet about single and double letters which meant the logic of words like 'committing' became 'commiting' in his eyes, and everyone knows a mite is not something you want to get together with. However, in his defence, the man researched all his etymologies from English dialect origins through to the fashions of gentrification and affected speech. Unlike Dr S Johnson who was a pompous bigoted gobsh*te.

Yes the whole spelling saga is on the Wikipedia page for spelling reform; look, I would like to rid English of many latinate words which double up on living or old English ones. To get folk to take this onboard is hard enough without mudding the waters with new spellings at the same time. To me, the key hurdle is what to do about the missing wordstock, that is, OE words which didn't make it into ME and so are not even listed in today's wordbooks. The other ask is what to do about norman-french words which have become deeply embedded in our tongue: words like "change", "point out". From my standpoint (mark "point"), some of these norman-ffrench borrowings could be just taken as is: it is the later renaissance and academic borrowings straight from latin that get right up my nose. So, in my book, we must get rid of "advantage" and "disadvantage" - there are good stand-ins to hand already, such as "freme", "gain", "drawback" "upside", "downside" and so on. No let-out for not using them. Every tongue has borrowings, we should keep the few celtic words such as "carry" as they are part of our "hand-me-down" (heritage), and so too words such as "coach" (hung) and "horde" , other words borrowed, often by seamen in their seafaring. Of course we can never get rid of all those latinates, forewhy there are tens of thousands of workplace (technical) words which come from latin. We just need to focus, target, aim, (oh give me an English word) at the oft-brooked latinate words like "vocabulary" (wordstock) and seek to bring forward their use among folk.

Jayles, they're my feelings entirely!

As you're aware, even all the Norman French borrowings would have paled into insignificance if they hadnt been strengthened and refortified with doublet and triplet borrowings from Early Modern French and Latin in the intervening centuries. Military and medical terms, had they not been introduced en masse to dumbfound the common man and keep him in his place during the Middle Elds, would fairly undoubtedly have developed more native nomenclature or inlandish-clepingwords had they not been purposely thrutched (oppressed).

HERITAGE = Eng. bequest, birthright

AIM = Eng. goal

TARGET < M.E. target (bearing from M.Fr. targuete "little shield" < O. Fr. targe + et < Frankish *targa and/or O.N. targa "round shield"). The Norman sway gave the Englisc word the "-et" ending. What's crazy (O.N. krasa) is that the O.Fr. was put in stead of O.E. targe, targa, akin to O.S. targa, O.N. targa, OHG zarga, O.Ice targa (from the same P.Gmc. root, *targô/ *targōn), which is a true Englisc word.

This Teutonic word was borrowed heavily by other tongues: Italian targa, Maltese tarka, French targe/target, Spanish/Portuguese tarja/darga, adarga, O.Cat. darga, Irish/ Gaelic targaid, Lithuanian darżas, Latin tergus, Wallach targa, among others.

CHANGE = Eng. shift, switch, make-over, warp, shape, asf., which indeed hangs on what one means.

"From my standpoint..." = Eng. "The way I see it...", " As I see it...", "From where I stand/sit...", "My take is..."

FOCUS = target, spotlight, fix (on/upon), fasten, heed, hone in (on), among others, which again, leans on one's meaning.

Loans and borrowings that weren't thrust upon English owing to overthrow or sieg, are likely welcome. Those words stemming from this kind of background, however, are rightfully unwelcome.

Jayles, I am with you. I think it begins by trending folks toward taking up true English words in their everyday speech.

USE = Eng. brook, note (O.E. nēotan, notian "to use"; akin to O. Fris. note, O.N. njóta).

The other note ("something written down") is from Latin notāre < L. notō < maybe from P.Gmc.*nutō, *niutan-, *nutja-, *nutō, *nauta-, *niutia-, *nuta-n, *niutian-, *nutjōn- “use, enjoyment”, or straight from Proto-Indo-European *neud- “to acquire, make use of”, but no one is steadfast about this Latin word's roots.

Good, we seem to be of the same mind.
I find when I am writing that I have to guess the root of the words in my head, so, for instance, "in agreement" is French, but then I have to think of that long list of Frankish borrowings. "list" is as I thought French too, although Chaucer brooks "list" as a jousting fight. And then "change" and I wonder what became of "wechsel" in English >> wristle did not make it to ME, although we have "wrestle" and "wrangle" and "wrist".
In my remarks above, I wrote "renaissance" because "rebirthing" has another meaning in today's English.
All in all, it is like learning a new tongue, scanning wonted words and thinking anew.

"paled into insignificance" >> become as bleak nothingness???
"in the intervening centuries" >> in the in-between hundreds of years ???
"introduced en masse" >> brought over in hordes ???
"the common man" >> working folk??
"developed" >> unfolded??
"native" >>> in-born??
"purposely" >> wilfully ??
just off the top of my head...

"targe" is still found in Shakespear (Antony and Cleo??) meaning "shield", I think.

Jayles:

List ("a series of names or other items written together in a meaningful grouping) is not French, it is Germanic: List < M.E. list < O.E. līste; akin to OHG līsta (today's German Leiste), Dutch lijst (Old Dutch *līsta), O.N. lista < P.Gmc. *līstōn ""border, edging, stripe".

Developed also comes from the Teutonic at its root; "the common man" = the Everyman; "purposely" >> have a mind to, mean/meant to---willful is great!

"native" >>> inborn is good. Also, in-wrought. Meaning 'aboriginal' >> first(-folk); Meaning citizen >> burgher/burgess

"in the intervening centuries" >> in-between the years-hundred (?)

"renaissance" >> (new) awakening, new dawn, but I like quickening best.

The French borrowed it as Liste, and the Italians as Lista, all from the same Germanic root. Also, lists "place of combat, tournament arena".

My 2 Marks.

Trending people towards true English words is wholly worth attempting, seeing as I don't think anyone has tried wholeheartedly for 200 yrs or more.

Jayles, I appreciate you picking up on all my latinate word usage, but just to set it straight, I'm looking to get my point across to not just those of us in the know, but those who stumble upon this site. Plus, for swiftness' sake and whilst we're discussing issues then I don't like to overdo it with anewed wordhoard that can complicate communication between all who partake.

"...I wonder what became of "wechsel" in English..."

German wechsel < OHG wehsal, wehsil (akin to O.Sax. wehsal, O.N. vīxl) < P.Gmc. *wīxsl(i)a-z, -n, *wixsla-z, -n

"William de Wyvil, and Stephen de Martival, [...] armed at all points, rode up and down the lists to enforce and preserve good order among the spectators."--1819, Walter Scott, Ivanhoe

Lists n. (used with a singular or plural verb) 1.an enclosed arena for a tilting contest.
2. the barriers enclosing this arena. 3. any place or scene of combat, competition, controversy, etc. < before 900; Middle English lista, Old English līst border; cognate with Dutch lijst, German Leiste (Old High German līsta).

Idiom -- enter the lists, to involve oneself in a conflict or contest: to enter the lists against the protective tariff.

This ME wordlist has manifold busens(examples) of Germanic words that we no longer brook:

http://www.librarius.com/gy.htm

Gallitrot: stimme ein. I had never consiered the lot of those who inadvertently stumble on this site.
Angelfolc: "the wind bloweth where it listeth". (from the King James bible John 3:8) I was raised on this stuff, and as you know much of it dates back to earlier translations.
OE lystan I suppose. "Der Wind blaest, wo er will."

Im seeing the word 'note' being used for the verb use. Now Ive seen that the ME spellings offer both 'note' and 'noote'. However, I find a discrepancy in how the pronunciation would be in modern English. As we don't really have a dead cert that 'note' is from Old English or Latin then this leaves the edquickening of it open to anewing the spelling, especially to stop muddling it with today's use of 'note' - so is there room for 'noot'?

Gallitrot:

It is known that note (meaning 'use') is Germanic; what is not known is whether or not note (meaning "to write or mark down briefly"), which is taken to be from Latin, is of a Germanic or P.I.E. root.

Byspels of note meaning 'use' are:

Gothic: niutan, Old Norse: njōta, Old English: nēotan, Old Saxon: niotan, nioʒan (8.Jh.)--`Nutz'; nōʒ (8.Jh.) > Today's German: geniessen, nützen, Nutzen, nutzen, nütze (obd. nutz) adv., Genosse.

From O.E. nēotan comes also benotian "to consume". Here are two ways that note and benote are noted:

"...amang þam feo þe we on þysum dagum notiaþ." = (in today's English) "....among the coins we use today."

"hie hæfdon...hiora mete benotodne." = (in today's English) "they had used up all their provisions."

notian= to use, benotian = to consume, make use of; brūcan = to use, bebrūcan = to use for a good purpose

noote is good, or nute, maybe?

Jayles: "the wind bloweth where it listeth".

You are right. I was not aware that you had learned this stuff in school. As you know, here, 'listeth' is from O.E. lystan (P.Gmc. *lustijanan; akin to O.N. lysta), and means "desire, pleasure, joy, delight". So, "the wind blows where it desires."

In today's English we have 'listless' from this O.E./M.E. word. It shares a root with O.E. lust, and P.I.E. root with lascivious (L. lascivia).

From the Bible, "lusts of the flesh" was written to mean L. concupiscentia carnis [I John ii:16]. In other Germanic tongues though, lust means "pleasure, desire", and not "uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite", as in English.

Yeah, I'd selfly do away with the redundant 'e' at the end, and because I've seen the variant of 'noote' in ME then had it lived on into modern times, then I suppose the ending 'e' would have been eclipsed by Early Modern English spelling reform. Nute is also an option as it's like the Dutch 'nut' , the only problem is it also sounds like the amphibian, or virtually like what you do to a tom cat when it's 'haming' about the sheeders ;)

This is fairly interesting, showing the many of the true Old English words that exist in English dialect forms.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FeAOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA353&lpg=PA353&dq=sheeder+female+cat&source=bl&ots=0bFh6zM3X2&sig=PK2bpXtVwNuppg_lj6yINbmhUw4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=X4RKT_aeDIHJhAfe2bmuDg&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sheeder%20female%20cat&f=false

I don't think one should fuss too much over how it is said:

blue/ blew

plane/plain

rain/reign

main/mane

time/thyme

seem/seam

team/teem

there/their

And so on, and so forth.

So, why not nute/newt?

If I look up "brook" or "note" online I find many meanings but not "use".
Remember "use" is deeply embedded in modern English; it's not use trying to say otherwise. It's a useful word not useless and has many uses. There I've used up nerarly all my arguments, apart from "used to " and "get used to" . Much ground to cover here.

@Aengelfolc: Yeah, that's true,there are many homophones/ selfclanks in English, but before I commit to the spelling 'nute' I just want to verify with you that the sound shifts are plausible to get to this proposed spelling from ME 'noote' obviously updating OE 'notian/nyttian/neotan' would likely lead to a '-u-' spelling, particularly for 'notian' pron. 'nootyan'. We have to all yeasay before we start to 'use' it - sorry, I mean 'noot/nute' it.

For myself I am quite happy to get rid of "utilize", "utilization" from today's English usage; that is quite enough. One must think of the end-user and deal with all the sundry uses of the word. Furthermore "brook" is so useful in the meaning of "allow" that for me one should not sully the meaning-in-being further.

Jayles:

NOTE and NUTTE (M.E. note < O.E. notian < P.Gmc. *nutōnan “to employ, make use of”; M.E. nutte < O.E. nytt "use, utility, advantage”< P.Gmc. *nutjō; akin to German nutz) did at first mean "to use". By the time of Middle English, its meaning switched to mainly mean "enjoy".

BROOK < M.E. brouken “to use, enjoy, make use of, digest food” < O.E. brūcan < Proto-Germanic *brūkanan; akin to German brauchen.

The Norman-French verb use didn't make it into English until sometime between 1175-1225, and seemingly took a while to drive out note/nutte.

"A he seide þat Bruttes neoren noht to nuttes, ah he seide þat þe Peohtes weoren gode cnihtes." — Layamon's Brut, abt. 1275

I do think 'use' is nutte, too, and may have a good why and wherefore for staying in English; it doesn't meet the 'before 1066' cut-off. ;-)

"nought to nuttes" — of no use, useless

All well and good, Jayles and thank you for doing the research bit.

However the strongest contenders/ kempers for the spelling we should adopt are still 'noot or nute' Nutte whilst possibly the closest to the original would undoubtedly be said 'nut' as this is a widely used slang term for 'head butting' then I think it would again fall victim to ambiguity.

So the question still remains: ' nute or noot ' (pron - nyoot & noot) or both and adopt one for the word enjoy and one for use? Though Im aware some dialects will pronounce the spellings identically.

Might I put forward "benote", that is since "use" is a yoked (transitive) verb be can clip on "be" as a forefix, and this will help cast asunder the meaning from "note" as otherwise spoke. Quite whether folk would understand the meaning of "benote" as "use" is the big ask. But it would at least make the spelling less of a moot point.
Here I sit, a lonesome meed-getter, cast upon the midden of life, nought to nuttes!

On another moot-point, I thought about benoting "foreslay" (Vorschlag) instead of suggest, but in English it sounds as though I just killed someone before they slew me!

Unfortunately the word 'benote' exists and is used as another verb to describe annotation. I dont see any problem with us deciding a spelling variant of the OE word notian, taking into account plausible sound and spelling changes to get it from ME to modern English. Sikerly, we can decide upon one or the other? Else we have to try and convince the English speaking world to change their usage of the word ' note' and 'benote' which smacks of utter impossibility.

It all rides on whether one wishes to be understood by all and sundry; choosing good English words and steering clear of latinate ones, with perhaps a sprinkling of good English words that have fallen by the wayside but are still in the wordbook is to me about all one can ask for. Making up modern spellings for words that are no longer in the wordbook i think would put the writing beyond the pale and make it not understood.
It does make my heart ache but I fear we should stick with what can be done for the time being, rather than bringing in requickened words that few would understand.

Ah, yes, but we live in times of the internet - dare to dream big! :))

Also, the 17th and 18th Century bookish folk didnt give a monkeys about messing around with spellings in some misguided belief that they were aligning spelling to its correct conclusive form. As long as the anewed words aren't forcerred by weird and wacky ideas of spelling, and stick to accepted norms, then there should be no hardship in bringing words back into use.

In my life I have dared to dream and sometimes lived my dreams.... for a while. After all we live in the age of the water-carrier! (Aquarius) So yes ... I do mark that in this neck-of-the-woods newswriters do seem to seek out good English words wherever do-able. And when we have cleaned up English we shall shift onwards to rooting our greed and wrongdoing wherever they be!

nutte = IPA /no͞ot/
note = IPA /nəʊt/

Also, English NEAT "A bull, ox, or cow" < Old English nēat (IPA: /næːɑt/) < Old English nēotan “to use”; akin to Old Norse naut, Icelandic naut (IPA /nøyːt/), East Old Norse nöt (see Swedish nötkött "beef") with the same meaning.

Aquarius = Water Bearer

Capricorn = Goat-Horned One

Pisces = Fishes

Taurus = The Bull

Cancer = The Crab

Gemini = The Twins

Aries = The Ram

Virgo = The Maiden

Sagittarius = The Bowman

Libra = The Scales (Old Norse skālar, Old English scealu)

All the Zodiac signs have a Germanic/English name, besides Leo (from Gk. léōn) and Scorpio (Gk. skorpíos).

"Making up modern spellings for words that are no longer in the wordbook i think would put the writing beyond the pale and make it not understood."

Well, how do new words make it into today's wordbook? Why can't Old English words be dusted off, spelled anew to meet today's standards (Frankish *standord/*standhard) , and put back in the English wordbook?

LOL funny word roots:

LADY (before year 900); M.E. ladi(e), earlier lavedi < Old English hlǣfdīge, hlǣfdige "loaf-kneader" (hlāf loaf + -dīge, -dige, variant of dǣge kneader).

LORD (before 900); M.E. lord, loverd < Old English hlāford, hlāfweard "loaf-ward".

They don't seem so kingly now, do they? ;-)

Why can't Old English words be dusted ... and put back in the English wordbook?
Search me, bro'. Guess we would have to get folk to use them again first.
'hlaf' (loaf) is I think a Viking word and they went to Rus and gave them 'xlep' (khlep) which means 'bread' in modern Russian. The English term "upper-crust' meaning the aristocacy comes from the practice of the lords claiming the top of the loaf. Of course in those days bread didn't come in plastic bags from the supermarket, and McDonalds was undreamt of.

''Well, how do new words make it into today's wordbook? Why can't Old English words be dusted off, spelled anew to meet today's standards''

Again Aengelfolc, you're speaking my speak.

Well I'm not very bookish, but looking at the doing thereof, where would we begin?
Whom are you truly going to write to, using a requickened OE word? Surely not your boss or any other business-body, as one would not be understood. I have dared to use "wordstock" instead of "vocabulary" or "lexis", and that is okay because it is readily understood; but if you push OE words at me, (unknowing as I am of such), I am just bemused. What needs to happen first is that young folk are taught OE (or maybe Dutch or something) that will make these words easier to take on-board: or another way - let the news-writers and storytellers push some requickened words into their writing. Either way there would be much marketing and talking-round to do.
Has anyone thought for instance of writing something for the last side of Time magazine? something understable but somewhat Chaucerian I would lay forward.

@Jayles. hear hear!

Ive been pushing the teaching of Dutch for all primary children for years. Brits are fecking lazy, and unfortunately still well zombie-like in their unfraining(unquestioning) of Francophilia. I do a little like you, Jayles, and try and sneak a few doublets or triplets into my blogs and business correspondence. Wordstock and Wordhoard are some of my faves, others however are 'chuckleworthy, mirthmaking, middenmouthed' the list goes on, just keep trying to use the old stock, and then I suppose change is quicker than any of us think.

"'hlaf' (loaf) is I think a Viking word and they went to Rus and gave them 'xlep' (khlep) which means 'bread' in modern Russian."

LOAF < M.E. lo(o)f, laf < O.E. hlāf "bread, loaf"; akin to O.N. hleifr, Scots laif, East Frisian luffe, North Frisian liaf, Swed. lev, O.H.G. hleib, Ger. Laib, Goth. hlaifs < all from P.Gmc *hlaibaz . O.C.S. chlebu (said xlěbŭ), Russian хлеб, Ukrainian хліб (xlib), Finnish leipä, Lithuanian klepas, Macedonian, Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian hleb/hljeb/hljȅb, West Slavic (Polish, Czech, Kashubian, Slovak) chleb/chléb/chlieb < P.Slav. *xlěbъ < are all Germanic loanwords from many sundry Teutonic tongues < P.Gmc *hlaibaz.

I, too, think that it is likely the Viking Rus gave the Russian tongue the word 'khlep'.

"if you push OE words at me, (unknowing as I am of such), I am just bemused. "

Aren't all bemused when reading words beyond one's ken? What is the word 'enough', but the Old English ġenōġ (IPA: /ˈje.noːj/)?? We know it, since we were taught it.

Give these new words to the kids; they are our best bet to spread the word(s). Blog, write, speak to quicken the English of old, and make them anew.

"I, too, think that it is likely the Viking Rus gave the Russian tongue the word 'khlep'."

I want to also say that it is highly likely (more so, I think) that the Goths gave the Slavs the word from Gothic hlaifs. The Goths had already settled the Vistula sometime in the 100's A.D, and were always pushing East and South. The Slavic tongues have a great many Gothic borrowings in them.

Loose the net for a two weeks and I miss a lot! lol

I noted Qapla' as a byspel for that it is from a constructed yet is alreddy in the English wordstock: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Qapla'

change (v.)
early 13c., from O.Fr. changier "to change, alter", from L.L. cambiare "to barter, exchange", from L. cambire "to exchange, barter", ***of Celtic origin***, from PIE root *kamb- "to bend, crook".

Þ and ð were noted interchangeably in OE. The ð was brought in by Irish monks but the thought that they were noted for different th sounds never laught (old strong form of latch) on.

Etymology 2
From Middle English noten, notien, from Old English notian (“to make use of, use, employ, enjoy”), from Proto-Germanic *nutōnan (“to make use of”), from Proto-Indo-European *neud- (“to acquire, make use of”).

Verb http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/note
note (third-person singular simple present notes, present participle noting, simple past and past participle noted)

(transitive, UK dialectal, Northern England, Scotland) To use; make use of; employ.
1553, Gawin Douglas (translator), Eneados (original by Virgil), reprinted in 1710 as Virgil’s Æneis, Tranſated into Scottish Verſe, by the Famous Gawin Douglas Biſhop of Dunkeld:
He would note it.
(transitive, UK dialectal, Northern England, Scotland) To use, for food; eat.
1808, Jameson:
He notes very little.
Derived terms
benote

Verb http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/benote
benote (third-person singular simple present benotes, present participle benoting, simple past and past participle benoted)

(transitive) To use.
(transitive) To consume.