“Anglish”

@Jayles, benefit in ME was ... benefit ... also benefet. As for behoove (v)/behoof (n)... that's a long tale about how it was noted. But to answer your frain, yes, in ME it was noted in the first person: If thou gif me mete..as I behoued [rime: foode] ... Here it means "need, require".

But think about it, we don't often note 'benefit' aside from third person ... it would benefit/behoove you to learn this. It is of benefit/behoof to us all.

Or as in the past tense (as in the ME byspel above): I benefited/behoovd. ... Or ... It was a benefit/behoof to me.

@AnWulf Thanks. All I could find was "frame" but that seems well and truly dead in the meaning of benefit.

@jayles ... Did you mean "freme"? The word fremful means beneficial, useful, effectiv.

Most of the words that meant "benefit, advantage, profit" in OE didn't make it. The word "good" can often be put in or "behoof" for the noun.

@AnWulf Yes, freme. Seems to come up as frame with slight meaning change too :

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/frame

I just balked at putting "behoof" as a tellable word as in :
"the drawbacks outweigh the behoofs" (or behooves, clip, clop!)

@jayles ... frame is a noteful word.

The drawsbacks outweigh the good ... the boon ... the worth ... the rewards (ward is Teut.) ... the gain ...

If there is any nay that English has become the "lingua franca" of the world:

So what are Brazil's sex workers doing to prepare for increased traffic during the World Cup? At the top of the list: learning English. ... and according to Laura Mario Do Espirito Santo — a founding member of Aprosmig, a union for prostitutes within the state of Minas Gerais — "[English] gets you ahead."

http://www.yourtango.com/2014217977/sex-how-brazils-prostitutes-are-preparing-world-cup

"[English] gets you ahead."
should perhaps be
"[English] gets you head."

I saw this in a sci-fi book over the weekend:

"English was the common tongue of the Imperium and seemed likely to remain so. Its flexibility, concision, and adaptability were certainly vastly preferable to Universal.

Throwing out the articles, to, and 'and', there 18 words. Of those, eight (8) or 44%, ar Anglo rooted … English, was, tongue, seemed, likely, so, its, were. The lave … common, imperium, remain, flexibility, concision (yuck … conciseness would hav been a tad better), adaptability, certainly, vastly, preferable, universal are Latinates.

Thankfully he wrote 'tongue' (French rooted spelling), 'seemed' and 'likely' rather than 'language', 'appeared', and 'probably'.

However, we can do better even tho a few of these are tuff words to swap out:

common - widespred, mainstream, main, overall
Imperium - Rike
remain - stay (Skeat has it of Teut. root), blive
flexibility - freedom, bendsumness, bendiness, stretchiness, litheness
concision - shortness, pithiness
adaptability - blendness, fitness, fittingness
certainly - wisly, gewiss, without nay, huru
vastly - greatly
preferable - better lik't
universal - all, overall, broad, everyday mainstream, one-tung … broad-tung

"English was the main tung of the Rike and seem'd likely to blive so. Its litheness, pithiness, and fittingness were without nay the better choosing than Broad-tung."

@AnWulf Thank you for this: it is refreshing to climb out of the latinate ruts of today's English.
That said, my understanding is that "pithy" stems from c 1520 not earlier?
And I seem to recall either Chaucer or Shakespeare using "siker" where we might use "certainly" today?

Pith is from OE piþa (þ=th). As for the shape pithy (pith+y), it shows up in ME as pithi (pithier, pithiest) often in the meaning of strong ... and the adv pithili (often in the meaning of thoroly).

a1400 (a1325) Cursor (Vsp A.3) 9384: And al-king thing was þan to trow Wel pithier [Göt: mihtier] þan þai ar now.

Siker ... from OE sicor, from Lat. securus (same as Ger. sicher) ... was both an adj and adv in ME. It was respelt 'secure' in the "back to Latin root spelling" moovment of the 16th yearhund (century). From 'secure (ly)' one can eathly note as 'certain(ly)' and it often was.

Hullo!

Good to see you fair chaps still wrangling and tussling the groundstones of our motherly speak.

h.b.t (harking back to) Anwulf's list:

preferable - rathered/ lief

Why is this thread here?

There is a whole forum devoted to Anglish.

@HS Why is this thread here?
Well it has lead me to consider the roots of modern English; to become much more aware of the influences on modern English lexis; the 'snob' value of using 'rapidly' instead of 'fast', 'quick', 'speedy', to be more aware of those older-rooted words that still exist in dialects and in the dictionary.

If one wades through all the guff, it is a treatise about lexis and style and what is the effect on "register" in modern English, and how acceptable some of the older, less common words are in modern English. Curiously, in the IELTS (International English Testing System), one gets extra marks for using "less common" lexis correctly and in context; however I doubt they mean archaic words, but rather more academic and latin-rooted words.

Sometimes one comes across new coinages like "go-forward" as a noun instead of "progress"; abd perhaps this mirrors the demise of Latin-learning at school, and a step in some areas toward a more straightforward forthright English style.

At any rate, in my view it is a wonderful exercise to try writing English which avoids latin-rooted words wherever it can be done/ wherever it is feasible/wherever it is viable. Equally using Norman-French-rooted words like 'feasible' wherever do-able makes one more aware of the everyday business register in modern English. If one cannot do this one might be unaware of the on-flow from word-choice in terms of informal/business/academic register. Knowing when to use 'invoice' instead of 'bill', 'purchase' instead of 'buy', 'vendor' instead of 'buyer' is very much a deal of modern English and in reading this thread one cannot sidestep the moot point.

That said, many Latin-rooted words cannot be easily sidestepped in today's English, and that is the end-point of this thread. Stick to words in the dictionary if you wish to be understood. Be wary of out-of-date words unless you are writing a historical novel or something.

But don't mark "hearty greetings" wrong at the end of a letter or email, mark it as "seldom used today" as it was quite okay four hundred years ago. It is no more wrong than Chaucer was in his day. Cherchez le mot just!

oops 'vendor' instead of 'seller'

@jayles the unwoven

Not sure how all that fits in to "grey areas of the English language".

Eschewing words derived from Latin and the romance languages seem to me to be a rather pointless exercise.
Do we really want to go around sounding like extras from Lord of the Rings?

@HS Given our diverse genetic genes, and the otherness of our upbringing and sundry experiences, and the on-flow on our mindset and thinking, it is hardly likely we shall see eye to eye on this. To look upon this thread as the upshot of a harmless (or perhaps mindless) eccentricity might be your best bet to restore your mind-frith.

Whether or nay it be pointless, is of course a matter of standpoint.

So you did not get the beckon to become an extra for Lord of the Rings? No wish to act the Orc or Gandalf?

@Hairyscot:

Ignoring all the reasons for unneeded doublets and triplets, and even quadruplets and quintuplets in English speech is what allows 'inkhorn' terms to be used by those shrewdly sly types, so as to make bureaucratic minced meat out of ordinary folk whenever their lives are touched by politics, law, medicine, etc... and most inkhorn terms are Latin or Old French. The terms may have been in our language for decades even centuries, but many are still impenetrable for the majority of native speakers.

Over the last 1000 yrs English speakers who have spoken a more Germanic form of English have often been treated as somehow 'base' or ' coarse ' for hundreds of years. Why? For no other reason than their forefathers were overcome by a small invasion force of French-ish speaking Vikings, and that they didn't have a natural Romance vocabulary of their overlords.

No matter what our stand-point now, lots of harm was done, plenty of people have been and are still being exploited due to jargon words and 'sesquipedalianism' , dare I say, freely allowed to enter be drawn-up in contracts and documents.

My question in return would be: Is it problematic if we started to shift our speech towards a more Tokienish style, as long as that speech brought more clearness, see-throughness and understandableness to the majority of native speakers, and even none-native speakers?

No need to cloud the meaning with "pedophile" when foot-lover would do instead.

One of the odd grammatical things about modern English is the way we use : want.
Eg: I want her to come

Oddly, if one puts this phrase into Ngrams it does not show up before 1804

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=I+want+her+to+come&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1500&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CI%20want%20her%20to%20come%3B%2Cc0

I had hitherto assumed that this usage started in the Middle Ages, but perhaps it was much later

This structure differs from both French and German (Je veux qu'elle aille: Ich will dass sie komme): the French phrase comes up on Google, but not the German one

So the questions are:
When did this structure with "want" come into use?
What did people say instead of it before then ?

Is the real Germanic way : She should/must/has to come ??

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=wanted+him+to%2Cwanted+her+to%2Cwant+him+to%2Cwant+her+to%2Cwant+you+to%2Cyou+should%2Cwant+thee+to%2Cwanted+thee+to%2Cthou+shouldst%2Cthou+shouldest%2Cwant+ye+to%2Cshe+should&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1500&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cwanted%20him%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwanted%20her%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cwant%20him%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bwant%20him%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bwant%20Him%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwant%20her%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwant%20you%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cyou%20should%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Byou%20should%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BYou%20should%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cwant%20thee%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bwant%20thee%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bwant%20Thee%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwanted%20thee%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cthou%20shouldst%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bthou%20shouldst%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BThou%20shouldst%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cthou%20shouldest%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bthou%20shouldest%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BThou%20shouldest%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwant%20ye%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cshe%20should%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bshe%20should%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BShe%20should%3B%2Cc0

So what did they use in Middle English for "decide"?
"Choose" is not quite the same thing.
"betake" seems little used in books (after 1500)

"slit" (cf schliessen, entschliessen) does not seem to be used in this meaning in OE

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=decide%2Cchoose%2Cchose%2Cresolve%2C+betake&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1500&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cdecide%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bdecide%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BDecide%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cchoose%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bchoose%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BChoose%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cchose%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cresolve%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bresolve%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BResolve%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cbetake%3B%2Cc0

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=is+coming%2Care+coming%2Cam+coming%2Cwill+come%2Cwill+be+coming%2Cis+going+to+come&year_start=1500&year_end=2012&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cis%20coming%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Care%20coming%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cam%20coming%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwill%20come%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwill%20be%20coming%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cis%20going%20to%20come%3B%2Cc0

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=will+come%2Cshall+come%2Cmay+come%2Cmight+come%2C+will+be+coming&year_start=1500&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cwill%20come%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cshall%20come%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cmay%20come%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cmight%20come%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwill%20be%20coming%3B%2Cc0

Do the above really chart the rise of continuous forms in English?
Do they really show a decline in the use of straight modals (esp shall) in favour of continuous?
Did the form "will be coming" really begin as just a Victorian affectation?

http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/6362-lamont.htm

My next question would be: how much did the post-1847 drive to teach English to Welsh children in schools contribute to the much-more-widespread use of continuous/progressive forms?
Did these forms become more common in 1800's because of grammarians' influences, the crossover from Welsh or upper-class affectation with over-politeness?

Either way it seems that the true Englishness of today's widespread use of continuous forms is questionable

"Because back in the 1840s, around 80 percent of people living in Wales were Welsh speakers, many of them spoke no English at all. Fast forward to the recent 2011 census and that number has dropped to below 20 percent."
as stated in :
http://sabotagetimes.com/life/mind-your-language/

Not sure whether this is well-founded or not, but if so could account for the late rise in continuous forms

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=has+been+wanting%2Chave+been+wanting%2Cis+loving%2Care+loving&year_start=1500&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Chas%20been%20wanting%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Chave%20been%20wanting%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cis%20loving%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Care%20loving%3B%2Cc0

Well this whole thing started because of the MacDonalds ad "I'm loving it", which to me is borderline - not something I would say.

What surprises me is that 'have/has been wanting' has declined so much lately

Let's go back to the beginning, shall we?

The first words about Anglish can be rewritten thus:

Anglish is a tongue made from today's English by drawing together words of Saxon stock and leaving out those which are outlandish.

Writing all in Saxon and Norse-root words isn't such a hardship, but...

I am reading two kinds of mistake about Anglish among the people posting. The first kind stems from laziness in thinking about meaningful speech: "all you blowhards should rather leave English alone," as though by speaking it we don't all have a hand in crafting it.

The second kind stems from laziness in rewriting English by using Saxon sounds without care for meaning. "Uncleftish springballs" is dumb and bewildering. "Great fireballs" when speaking of World War II would do much better: it is Saxon, straightforward, and strong.

Moreover, this bewilderingly dumb problem is heard again and again in the high-speech, low-speech nonsense in shows like those made by that "History" network. Some of the story is told in outlandish speech, and then the same thought is straight away retold in "low" English. This is meant to stand in for giving true insight.

However, for some really good Anglish, one needs look no further than Tolkien. Taut, thriving speech is best won by wielding the mightiest words ready to hand, and Tolkien was the wizard of all writers when it came to roots English.

As his amazing work tells, Anglish doesn't have to be boring, nor does English. Nor does English hurt much from leaving out outlandish speech. I love Latin and Greek, but today they are often used to hide rather than show true meaning. Writing in an Anglish way makes thoughts sharper and writing more trustworthy.

I've been writing about Anglish for years. My latest website is pureenglish.org. All comments are welcome. By the way, I set the Anglish Moot up with a likemind, but we've both forsaken it as we do not agree with the direction of most users there.

Is this sentence right? It might snow; mighten it? Mighten means- it might will snow. It's like making a statement and asking a question at the same time but the question is directed at another person as in asking the other person's opinion.

MIGHTEN!!??

I just came across Anglish this early this morning. It's intriguing to say the least. However, it does seem to be clunky and awkward. Languages always was a bit of a hobby to me. But if you really want to get a good go at it, start with the kids, and tell them to start speaking Anglish to annoy their parents. :-)

There is something to be said for using, or reviving, the native English word, as over against the loan word, in current speech; because the native word is often, I think, clearer. Of course one can take it too far and end up speaking a badly crafted form of 'Old English' which would sound rather ridiculous. Better to learn Old English and speak it properly.

The comment begins with the urge to “fuck French, fuck Latin, fuck Greek”. I thought this was an academic debate about whether or not to reduce the amount of foreign words in the English language, not an opportunity to insult other people and their languages. If this particular commentator feels like “fucking” a language, he can always “fuck” his own.

Hello,

Does anyone know anything about this site:

http://ednewenglish.tripod.com/index.htm

The first sentence describing it says:

"Ednew English is dedicated to an awareness and restoration primarly of native English words."

There are lists of prefixes, suffixes, verbs, and so on; but there is no information about who the author is.

There are lots of interesting words there, but I wonder if they are actually words. For example, is "Ednew" actually a word?

Thanks,

This looks very much like Cowley's work who wrote 'How we'd talk if the English won in 1066' . I think he's an excellent linguist with cutting edge ideas on the make and mode of English as it stands and would have been. I do, however, believe that 'ednew' became the modern 'anew' thus, it should be Anew/ Anewed English.