“Anglish”

@jayles: "...words like "banana" and "potato" would be sensible."

They are, although many tongues have their own word (albeit usually a regional one): Polish "ziemniak"; German "Erdapfel (which was also used to tell about a 'globe'), Erdbirne, Grundbirne; Dutch "Aardappel"; Icelandic "jarðepli"; Swedish "jordpäron"; Nynorsk/ Bokmål ‬"jordeple" and others.

Think about this: the French word today is "Pomme de terre"; in the 16th c. the French said "Cartoufle" (cf. other German, Ślůnski, Danish, Russian, Icelandic words for "potato").

Banana can be said in many other ways like "Adamsfeige", "Paradeisfeige" (German, sometimes Dutch), "bjúgaldin" (Icelandic-rare), among others.

But, I guess what is easy and common prevails---especially when a word is decided on globally. Also, that is not to say that the origin of the food, thing, or thought should carry its native name. There is something to be said for that. It fits in with what I have said before: "Der Träger der Kultur sei die Sprache".

Cheers!

correction: "Also, that is not to say that the origin of the food, thing, or thought shouldn't carry its native name."

Ængelfolc: Good: and what about the yoga-speak; the names of the poses in yoga; are we to use sanskrit or translate; eg veravadrasana = "warrior" pose ??? "aana" means pose; and we now get "plankasana" as their is no sanskrit for the plank position. (Plank here is not quite the same as the current planking craze).

Ængelfolc: could possibly find an idiomatic way to say in German:
"I always take my brolly with me in case it rains".

What an interesting thread! Ængelfolc you should certainly have your own blog for Ænglisc.

While I do fault academia for encouraging the use of Latin and Greek based words, it's probably not for the reason that many think. Actually, it's pretty simple. I had to write a lot of term papers and research papers that usually had a length requirement of X pages. Well heck, why use often and talk when I could use a longer words like frequently and conversation to push me towards that minimum page limit ... and those 50-cent words sounded more impressive. So one becomes used to do that! And once I gained a reputation for being able to write well using those 50-cent words, then the boss always came to me to either write a proposal or proofread something he had written.

But nowadays, I try to stay clear of Latinates. Strangely, I have no issue with Greek based words. Sometimes I think I was a Greek soldier in a previous life. I even learn a little Greek years ago.

I should mention that I am "conversant" ... meaning not fluent but able to talk if the other person speaks slowly and clearly ... and keeps the words simple in Russian, German, and Spanish. I learned Russian at the Defense Language Institute; learned German while living in Berlin, and Spanish while living in Latin America.

I often help others learn English and have even aided in a few professional translations. One of the things that I point out is that the basic English likes short words and to build other words using them similar to German. Having said that, it's very hard for me to keep away from Latinates and I don't think that one can teach latter-day English without them.

Loan words that I would keep ... A lot actually.

1. Computer ... I don't know who used it first but US companies like IBM and Apple have taken it and exported it to the world in its current use. We own it now! No sense in trying to go back to yank it out and create yet another word. Besides, it has spun off some English words into other languages. You can see ads in Latin America for "el laptop" and "el notebook" ... libre wi-fi!

2. Military terms. I'm a vet and let's face it. The French-based ranks is widespread and engrained ... especially the officer ranks. Even Germany has Leutnant, Major, and General ... as do the Russians. The military is heavily influenced by French military terms and you're not going to change that institution.

3. As I said before, I don't have a problem with Greek derived words, especially scientific words. I know what a hydrogen atom is. While I know that hydro means water and gen is basically "born of" or "created from", I don't associate the hydrogen atom with directly with water except that I know it is part of the compound of water H20. But the German way of saying it Wasserstoff (water stuff) strikes me as almost childlike and bangs one on the head that that is "water" ... yes, I know that hydro means water but doesn't slap me in the face like "water stuff" would.

To calque economy into English would only make sense on the personal (home/house management) but not on a grander scale. And to calque ecology wouldn't make any sense. Just accept them. If you can't find a better word then just use them.

One more thing ... I feel like I should have taken notes along the way. I did go to the Anglish wiki site and looked around. It's not very user friendly for discussion and debating ... and there doesn't seem to be a lot of debating the terms. And I don't know if there is some method of making a decision on what goes and what stays.

I picked the word battle and here what is listed:
Non-attested:
hurly-burly
clash
struggle

*** Hurly-burly? WTF? Clash ... Maybe. Struggle ... Doesn't have the intensity for me of two armies on a battle field.

Attested:
bedlake ... ?
bedew ...?
hild ... OE word that I recognize. I don't know OE well enough to know if this is a good use. But it wouldn't be something instantly recognizable.

One that I didn't see "camp" or maybe "kamp" from OE for battle ... similar to German "Kampf". But a "campfield" (battlefield) could be confused with a campground ... at least spelling it "kampfield" would help there. Maybe "clashfield" or "clashground" would indeed work. Oh well, I like the word battle so I guess I'll keep some form of it tho I could use clash as a verb.

Anwulf: in Hungarian "szamitogep" is use for computer; it means calculating machine.
Not suggesting something similar would work in English; it's too late now anyway.

Spanish has "ordenador" and maybe they use that in Spain but in Latin America I see "computadora" ... and sometimes hear "el computer".

The people that I know from Quebec use computer ... France probably has an official French word for it.

German has "Rechnung" and "Computer" ... Computer is common among my friends.

Since you speak Russian ... компьютер

I'm sure that their are some holdouts around the world! lol

The problem now would be to accurately describe it. (Three words there that need Anglish words ... problem, describe, accurately).

I can do math, write, draw, communicate (written, sound, and sight) with it ... So, what is it? What would you call it if you didn't already have a name for it?

there is an existing term "ready reckoner"; so something based on "reckon" might be feasible (or do-able).

AnWulf, when did you go to the DLI? What branch were you in? What was your DLAB score? I will get to go to the DLI soon!

I would like to talk to you about the DLI so I can get some good advice/tips form someone who was there. I leave for Air Force BMT in on July 4.

Ready Reckoners were tables for financial calculations ... I think that would apply nowadays more to calculators. I know that my old textbooks from my university days has financial tables in the back. I wonder if they still print those tables?

But you did stirr an old memory from my early tech days and sure enough, I found it ... Claude Kagan had a proposal for what he called the "Home Reckoner" or "HR"back about 50 years ago. http://www.retrotechnology.com/dri/thehomereckoner.pdf

I think he got the idea for the name from Jules Vernes story. Who, in turn, probably knew about a device called the Step Reckoner.

The verb reckon has a broader meaning than simply to calculate so if I were trying to peg a word for a computer then "reckoner" would probably be it. Oh well ... What could have been ...

@addyaty ... I went there many years ago for Russian and I was Army. Actually, I DLI at Presido was overcrowded and they were building new barracks so a few classes, mine among them, were sent to a branch campus set up at Lackland, AFB where you're going for Basic and where the Army had its English language school for foreigners. So while I missed out on glamor of Presido, I can't complain because the instruction at Lackland was excellent and I enjoyed being there. As a side note, our graduates performed better at the next phase training, especially on military terminology and listening comprehension.

DLI was one of the few schools that I went in the military that wouldn't keep giving you shot after shot to pass. We had a 50% washout rate. The class was composed of Army and AF personnel. We started with 128 and graduated 64. It was 48 weeks with a 4-week break at the mid-point so we could use our leave time.

All I can tell you is that you if you begin to flounder, get help fast. Go to the instructors and ask for some one-on-one time after class. I imagine nowadays that they're much more high-tech than when I was there. I'm guessing that you can have CDs made to listen to in your room. I don't know what language you have, but we had a few sergeants who were come thru for their second language. I remember one in particular who had been thru DLI for German and was coming thru for Russian ... He didn't make it. If you're taking a language that you're not familiar with already, don't assume that you'll have an easier time just because you already have a second language. It'll be a good time and you'll always remember it ... Good luck!

AnWulf: "Ængelfolc you should certainly have your own blog for Ænglisc."

AnWulf: "Ængelfolc you should certainly have your own blog for Ænglisc."

Vielen Dank für das Lob!

@jayles: "I always take my brolly with me in case it rains".

Well, I take it that you are just looking for an unusual word for "brolly", since you likely know how build the rest of the phrase.

Instead of Schirm or Regenschirm, one could say "das Regendach" or, even funnier, "die Musspritze".

Hope this is what you seek. Cheers!

"campfield" (battlefield) could be confused with a campground"

Why not 'fightfield', 'warfield' (war is actually a Germanic word (Frankish *werra), where 'battle' is straight up Latin from 'battuālia'), or 'kriegfield' (English already uses kriegspiel)?

Ængelfolc: sorry I was actually wondering how you would deal with 'in case'; 'falls' seems to mean the same as 'if'; phrases like "fuer den Fall, dass.." or 'gegen die Moeglichkeit, dass... ' seem to convey the meaning but I have never seen or heard them used.
Of course one could say in German 'I take my brolly with me whether it is raining or not"
but I was wondering if there really is an idiomatic equivalent of 'in case".
Perhaps it is like 'whereas", which is okay in English, but "wohindagegen" decided uncommon in German; comments appreciated

Here are my thoughts about the choices you offered:

1. Fightfield/fightground ... maybe ... Even tho fight can be used to describe anything from individuals to countries, it doesn't have the same nuance when it comes to the area covered. It doesn't seem to rise to the level of battlefield in the scope of size. Units fight each other as a subset of a battle.

2. Warfield/warground ... again, maybe ... This one has the opposite issue in that its too big. Units fight a battle as part of a war.

3. Kriegfield/kriegground ... Kriegspiel isn't really used that much. I rarely heard outside of Germany or unless someone had just rotated in from a unit stationed in Germany. Kind of like you hear soldiers in Germany use "machts nichts (nix)" but it's not common stateside. Altho, krieg is a known word unlike the OE guth.

They fought a battle ... They fought a fight? Naw ... They fought war? Too big in scope. The fought a krieg? Schlacht? Or from OE ... Hild, Sacu? Sacufield sounds like soccerfield. Hildfield? Shlachtfield? (Make it an English "sh").

Out of all of those, if I had to pick one ... It would be from the last two and probably lean toward shlachtfield/shlachtground or even shlachtfeld. But then that is probably my bias since I know German better than OE.

On a different word, I was trying to a find another word for the verb "to use" ... (mid-13c., from O.Fr. user "use, employ, practice," from V.L. *usare "use," frequentative form of pp. stem of L. uti "to use," in Old L. oeti "use, employ, exercise, perform," of unknown origin. Replaced O.E. brucan.)

The only thing that I could remotely find that wasn't Latin based was "to brook" from OE brucan but the meaning of latter-day "to brook" doesn't include "to use".

Sometimes you just gotta keep what you have! lol

@AnWulf. Thank you! I will find out which language either toward the end of Basic or when I go to Monterey. I scored a 136 which qualifies me for Chinese, Arabic, Japanese, and Korean. I have no interest in any of those, but if I had to pick based on after-military plans, I'd choose Chinese. Korean would be ok because of it's alphabet, but I heard that it is *the* toughest language... and also useless after-military. Out of sheer interest, I hope to get Arabic, that is, if i get stuck with one of those four.

I have read online that I will get to make a wishlist with three languages but, obviously, military needs come first. On my list, I would put German, Russian, and Icelandic. I'd be happy with any Romance, Germanic, or Slavic language.

On the other hand reviving 'wont' as in I was wont to.... might be nice, instead of used to

addyatg: "Korean...*the* toughest language": this depends on your own first language. Tonal languages such as Mandarin, Thai, Vietnamese are often very difficult indeed for people from non-tonal languages. Learning Chinese-style hieroglyphics is also time-consuming indeed. The other factor apparently there is not much literature of any interest in Korean (???), compared to say Mandarin, or Arabic.
On a less serious note, if the Hungarians had won the battle of Lechfeld in 955, and settled in western Europe, subsequently invading England in 1066 and imposing their language on the common folk (instead of the laissez-faire approach of the Normans, it is just possible that people in the US today would all be speaking Magyar........

addyatg: "On my list, I would put ... and Icelandic" I didn't realise that the recent clouds of volcanic ash which stopped flights all over Europe were in fact a terrorist reprisal attack on the IMF.....

Re battle: slaughter is modern form of Schlacht.
Re computer: of course saxons did not have any computers; but they did jot things down on scrolls marketed under the brand name: "eyepad".

@addytag ... When I enlisted, I was able to lock down the language before going to basic. I took the DLAB because the recruiter asked after my ASVAB score came back if I would like to learn Russian. Then the guys downtown, at first, couldn't find an open slot for Russian and asked if I go with Korean. I told the guy that I wanted a shot at being assigned to Germany ... He said, "Well, just because you take Korean doesn't mean that you'll go to Korea." Yea, right ... I said no thanks to Korean and then another guy found the slot in a slightly different MOS and I signed up.

My brother went thru DLI for Mandarin as did a guy I went thru Basic with. He told me that the grammar of Chinese was simple but the tonals and the writing were a real pain. I had a quickie intro to Japanese and it seems pretty complex. I have no experience with Korean and no desire to learn Arabic tho I did learn a little Persian from a Iranian girl. ;)

My guess is that isn't a great demand for airmen with Icelandic skills. I don't think that we need to monitor their military transmissions to any great extent. Probably not much of a demand for German now that the Cold War is over. Still need Russian, Chinese, Arabic, Farsi-Dari-Pashto (for Afghanistan), and a few others.

To be honest, I haven't done anything professionally with Russian since I left the Army. So pick languages that you want to learn for whatever reason. Japanese was hot back in the 80s, Chinese is somewhat in demand now. But I think we'll see them go the way of Japan ... an influence in the market but not dominating it. I disagree with Jayles about Arabic ... There's really no great need to learn it unless you want to work in the Saudi oil fields.

The AF will be a good life. We called the AF "civilians in uniform" because it's much more casual than the Army. At least you won't have to crawl thru the mud! lol

@Jayles ... they're related. Schlacht is battle; Schlachten is slaughter. The verb schlagen is to hit or strike; erschlagen is to slay; schlachten is to slaughter.

As for Lechfeld, if the Hungarians had won would they have settled or just push their raids farther west?

If Hitler had not decided against taking Malta, German would be a much more dominating language in Europe right now! ...

I have been trying to use non-French and non-Latin based words for a few days and it's darn near impossible!

Try - from OF trier
Use - from OF user (from L uti)
Base - OF - Latin
Impossible - OF - Latin

AnWulf: sometimes we can use "seek to" instead of try: she sought to escape...
sometimes "ground" for base: the system is grounded on the data server...
but yes often it's a "no-can-do" situation. Most languages have borrowings so does English, just struggle (or try) to avoid the unneeded ones, although sometimes those latinate words have a very specific and irreplicable meaning, nuance, or neutrality.

I was surprised myself to see that Hungarian raids extended as far west as Spain. but
the point was that language is often a fluke of history. The US could easily be Spanish or French speaking now if the Louisiana purchase had not gone through.

AnWulf:

About "Kriegspiel": The point was that "Krieg" is not foreign to English.

About "try": Anglo-Norman/Old French trier

"We called the AF "civilians in uniform" >> or the "Chair Force" ;-)

@jayles:

"fuer den Fall(e), dass.." is right. Or, one can say "falls" or "im Falle". So, "in case it rains" >> "falls es regnet".

I like "Shlachtfield", but maybe "Slaughtfield"? Maybe "skirmishfield" or "frayfield" (fray

"I have been trying to use non-French and non-Latin based words for a few days and it's darn near impossible!" >> I have been striving (

Thought this article was interesting and appropriate for this blog:

German linguists oppose influx of English words
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/14/german-language-anglicisms-challenge

@addyatg: See the link below...

http://airforcelinguist.com/

I follow the link from the airforcelinguist to the sample DLAB ... @addyatag, I hope your DLAB was tougher than that. That was simple. I thought my DLAB was really strange until I started Russian and then I realized that it was based on a slavic language with multiple, declined endings.

@Ængelfolc, that was an interesting. Maybe someone would point that "market" was imported into English via French from Latin.

I'll go on your word that "try" is old Frank and possibly Germanic ... otherwise it becomes awkward to work around it.

I think I'll just have to accept the word "use" ... It's just too darn ... well ... useful! And I like it much better than the other import ... utilize which comes from the same root! I rarely use "utilize". I always say "use".

Generally, I'm ok with one or two-syllable word imports. It's the three+ syllable imports that I really start me looking for something different. And it has been a challenge at times to find non-French/Latin words to use!

@jayles ... I agree about the nuances ... at least in part. One has to wonder if those nuances are there because there was a real need for it or are the there just because of our perceptions. English was the on the lower tier below French and Latin and then still below that of Latin for many years. The "cultured", "elite", "educated", etc. learn French and Latin. I imagine that this showed off by using them even with the lower classes who, in turn, related those words to being more worthy than mere Anglo-Saxon/English words.

Is there really a nuance between despise and hate? Is hate that much stronger? Or less polite? Have we had centuries of conditioning to accept that French/Latin based words are better? Even now we're often told in the US that we should accept the "diversity" of other languages than requiring that our gov't carry out its affairs in English. Those who promote English first are labelled as haters ... Even on this thread, the mere idea of attempting to forego the use of French/Latin words brought out the label of racist.

The mere fact that English has not only survived all these trials but thrived is amazing. In one way, we should be grateful. Since English was looked down upon, nobody was trying to control it. It was allowed to change in such a manner that Anglo-Saxon lost most of its declination and gender in the process. A good thing in my eyes.

OTOH, it picked up a lot of French/Latin words, the god-awful French spelling habits and rules, and "thou", "ye", and "you" got all mangled up (mainly as the result of imposing the T-V (tu-vos/vous) rule on thou and ye).

@AnWulf: "I'll go on your word that "try" is old Frank and possibly Germanic ..."

It is seemingly more and more likely that "try" it is from Frankish. Some say that "try" is from Gallo-Roman *triare, but is "of unknown origin". Yet others stop at the Old French word trier (‘separate, sift’) as the root. Still others write that it is from Vulgar Latin *trītāre (p.p. of Latin terere (to rub). When one, however, puts a little elbow grease into the research, one can find the truth of it all. Looking at all of the root meanings, it becomes clear that the root is in all likelihood PGmc *tiranan, *tirōnan (“to tear, separate from..., tear apart”). The Old French trier, whence English "try" meant “to choose, pick out, separate from..., sift, cull”.

In years gone by, academics always believed a French/Normaund word to have a Gaulish-Latin root. Today, those old findings are being found to be untrue in many, many cases. Take the word 'farm'. It was always said to come from Latin firmo, firmus, firmāre, but this is not so.

As it happens, the Romans borrowed Germanic *fermō, *ferhumō, whence firmo, firmus, firmāre. Latin lestagium is from Old English last; L. bannus

AnWulf: Is there r:eally a nuance between despise and hate? Oh quite definitely. I might indeed despise (or look down on) you (as I do all underlings) but I certainly don't hate you! Underlings are neither worthy of hate nor love!!!! ;+)) nothing personal.

AnWulf: After long years learning latin and french at school, like so many grammar schoolboys I find it easier to make up the word "irreplicable" than find a real English word. Hardly surprising, is it? If one wastes the teenage years sitting at a desk learning stuff only befitting a catholic priest, that really is all one is good for, n'est ce pas? Of course such an "education" affects one's English. Far better to learn Welsh or Dutch.

@Ængelfolc, thanks for the link, but I have seen it before. :-)

@AnWulf. Yes, the actual DLAB was a little tougher than that. The rules regarding nouns and adjectives were like Esperanto: all nouns end with A and all adjectives end with O and all plurals end with S... or something like that. The possessive was like the Latin Second Declension Masculine Genitive -i as in dominus/domini and murus/muri. So "Adam's book" becomes "Adami book" or even "book Adami".

The past verbs were like Anglo Saxon with a "ya" prefix. The man ya-wrote book about languages.

After that easy stuff, they showed about five little icons: a donkey head, a man, a dog, a duck, and a purse. Each word had a made-up "foreign word", respectively giving "asa, bosa, gola, flopa, and chicha"

Then they would mix up the parts from each icon like a man with a donkey head. Then they would give us four options to choose from: golasa, asflapa, bosicha, and bosasa.

Well, the only "word" that has elements from both donkey/asa and man/bosa" is "bosasa" so that had to be the right (or, at least, the MOST right) choice.

The test was worth 176 points total but there were NOT 176 questions. So I think when it came to this icon part and the weird part after, some points were 3 or 2 while the rest were worth nothing.

The last part (and really weird part) was the complicated version of the icon part. I honestly could only narrow it down to 2 or 3 out of the 4 or 5 options.

no everything is incorrect

@jayles ... just don't say irregardless! lol

For me the only difference between being despised or being hated is that being despised is perceived as being more polite and I think that is a few hundred years of conditioning.

@Ængelfolc ... It would be only natural that there are a lot of Frankish words in French since the Franks overran them way back when ... just as Spanish has a lot of words of arabic origin and English has a lot words of French origin. I'll take a word of Frankish origin over Latin if possible.

The funny thing is that during the height of the Roman Empire, Greek was still the lingua franca (Frankish tongue). I once asked why was the New Testament written in Greek instead of Latin since the Roman Empire was in charge and that's what I was told. More people spoke Greek. After the fall of the Roman Empire, thanks to the Catholic Church in part, Latin became the "Frankish tongue".

@addyatg ... Let's us know which language you eventually get. I know that you'll have a blast at DLI. Just remember that the coursework comes first. And, to be honest, AF Basic is pretty much a joke in comparison to the Army's or Marine's so relax and remember that it will quickly pass. When I was at Lackland, they weren't even allowed to make the trainee's do pushups as punishment (or extra conditioning as it was known in the Army if anyone asked). Pfft ... I think that they carried a pad of demerit slips and I don't know what happened if you got too many. It'll be good for stories and you'll laugh about it after you get out.

@AnWulf: "English has a lot words of French origin"

The thing is, is that many words that are taken as "French" (Latin/Gaulish) are really "Frankish" (Germanic), and in some cases "Scandinavian" (Old Danish, Norwegian, asf).

"One has to wonder if those nuances are there because there was a real need for it or are the there just because of our perceptions."

It is the way English speakers were taught to understand a single words shades of meaning, as well as, how the words were used by the folks everyday; This is how meanings shift.

I do not think that "latinate words have a very specific and irreplicable meaning, nuance, or neutrality" at all. English speakers were taught (through academics and living amongst French speakers and clergy) that these words had this kind of worth. I guess the truth of it hangs on through which window one looks out from.

My 2 Marks.

Ængelfolc: I actually wrote: "SOMETIMES latinate words.....". Years ago the milk truck delivered fresh milk in glass bottles to our street of an evening. Each evening the driver boomed to his milkboy helpers: TWO HOMOS at # eleven!!!
meaning not homosexuals but homogenized pints of course. In pre-Bastard times the driver would have shouted: TWO MIXED-UPS at # eleven!!! , but all DIY then of course.

On a more serious note: It is perfectly true that there is a snob value in using latinate words. Thus job adverts contain phrases like "able to work autonomously" - and other "buzz" words. So to intermediate students I just explain this as "on your own", which is near enough for that level. However at proficiency level we then ask the question what is the difference? and clearly autonomously is closer to independently, and "on your own" might mean "alone". Now of course one can come up with other substitutes for autonomously, either completely calqued or just madeup or some revival of OE, but they are never going to have exactly the same feeling as the original (Gk), for good or ill. Of course modern English is littered with the debris of borrowings - wan/pale/pallid;
bloke/wight/man/homo/person; etc.; we just need to weed out the unneeded ones.

On a more businesslike take/knell/tip/heeding: it is spotlessly true that there is a snob worthiness in wielding latinate words. Thus work adverts house phrases like "able to work autonomously" - and other "buzz" words. So to middling learners I just untangle this as "on your own", which is near enough for that standing of learning. However at the skilled end the asking raised is what is the unlikeliness between both? and indeedly autonomously is closer to independently, and "on your own" might mean "alone". Now indeed one can come up with other stand-ins for autonomously, either utterly borrowed or just madeup or some backkindling of OE, but they are never going to have wholly the same feeling as the firsthand (Gk), for good or ill. Indeed todays English is strewn with the dregs of borrowings - wan/pale/pallid;
bloke/wight/man/homo/person; etc.; we just need to weed out the unneeded ones.

Pathfinders listen up, shape a ring around the hearth...

a *ring* o' roses

and

*naughts* and crosses

and

Saturn's rings

instead of:

a circle o' roses

and

zeros and crosses

and indeed

Saturn's circles

Pathfinders listen up, shape a ring o hearth(?)

If 'o' = 'around'

then 'osheep' = 'around sheep'

could using 'o-' as a prefixlike thingy be useful for anything?

could a word be wrought for 'sourround' like: 'onknell' (sourround sound) /the hall onknelled allover in whistles and drums/ (?)

onbooms/oblooms = 'around blooms'

"...clearly autonomously is closer to independently, and "on your own" might mean "alone"."

It seems that "on your own" can mean "autonomously" or "alone". Why is it "clearly" closer to independent? The two meanings of the phrase do not take away from the either meaning in context. One could consider "on your own" to mean autonomously and "by yourself" to mean alone, right?

"The new hire must be able to work by himself, without too much oversight."

Yes, cut away the unneeded loans!

Ængelfolc: sorry I was not clear. The job ad meant 'independently', substituting 'on your own' makes the meaning ambiguous; 'without too much oversight' would be clearer.

Stanmund: I liked "stand-ins"; found "unlikeliness" confusing with "improbability";
and "intermediate" and "proficient" are in this context technical terms used around the world and by publishers for specifically defined levels, whereas "middling" and "skilled" sound as if they address the performance of the student. Technical lablels are hard to change. I have an "LNB" on the roof, what it is, does, or stands for, I neither know nor care, just I need one for each satellite. It is just a label.

Stanmund: twenty years ago I had no idea that "job" was countable and "work" was not; (well not usually in English); but every 'middling' English student has to learn this well. The result is that one cannot arbitrarily substitute work for job everywhere without crossing the boundary into nonstandard English. So if one of my students wrote "work advert" they would earn themselves extra homework to discover the difference between countable and uncountable nouns. FYI the commonest mistakes by non-native european speakers are things like "informations"; "equipments"; "advices"; "furnitures"; while of course many speakers from SE asia omit the plurals everywhere....
Can we not keep the word job as is may be Celtic?
Secondly (Fr) "strewn with the dregs" is a mixed metaphor indeed. "bestrewn with the rubble of... conjures up a picture better I think.
But we do love a trier!

And for all you diehard anglishers I confess to explaining the meaning of "annual" by starting with year, explaining the adjective is "yearly" and that annual means the same. This is the stuff which is so insane.

"Job" is only Celtic if one accepts it to be from Irish "gob" (lump), but it has not yet been borne out as true. What is known is that "Job" is from Mid.Eng. jobbe "piece, article (of work); a cartload" > Wow! It is a mongrel name if I ever read one! 2/5 Germanic, 2/5 Latin, 1/5 Celtic. Something for everyone!

@jayles:

"The new hire must be able to work without oversight."

@jayles:

Or better yet...

"The new hire must work without oversight."

Why make it too wordy with "able"? Isn't having the "ability" assumed in this example? Isn't it more to the point?

Ængelfolc: the problem with "must" in modern English is the English feel it smacks of being too dictatorial, so often in business people attempt to soften the impact. Quite how we got to this situation I don't know, especially considering that "must" was originally a polite past subjunctive.
One of the difficulties for German speakers is to realize that in German using "must" seems to make things more polite, whereas the opposite happens in English. The same applies to "have to". ("need to " takes the edge off, but really we need to move from command mode to request mode to be safe when doing business).
So for example in a bank:
German: "Sie muessen an den anderen Schalter gehen."
English: "I'm terribly sorry sir, but you seem to have come to the wrong counter. I was wondering if you would like to go over to the other one please".
(Always remembering that length=politeness in England)
OTOH i too detest the work-around "to be able to" but it arises because modal verbs in English are defective in not having infinitives, whereas in German they still do. Also "will be able to" can often be replaced by a simple "can" but many european speakers of Englsh who have a specific future form of the verb in their own language fail to realize that any modal can be used to talk about the future in English.
Finally we should not overlook the fact that the commonest meaning of "must" in English is not obligation, but in fact "logical deduction" eg "Why is she late? She always comes on time. She must be sick or the bus must have been canceled."
Next lecture at 0200 tomorrow

"I'm terribly sorry sir, but you seem to have come to the wrong counter. I was wondering if you would like to go over to the other one please".

It is overwhelmingly wordy!! Are so many words a "must" in England? Really?! Although, the whole sentence (word-string) is English, save "counter" (L) and "please" (L). Good show, jayles!!

German is much more direct. This sometimes comes up in my English (or whatever tongue I am speaking). It is one of the reasons why Germans are often called "rude" or "abrasive", even when they are not. We're all FRANK! LOL

Well, we are all frank Franks! That's what I meant to say.

Ængelfolc: "Are so many words a "must" in England?" I did exaggerate to make the point; however we do tend to prefix bad news with "I'm afraid"; and because we lack the implicit politeness of "Sie" I think we tend to use polite phrases to "wrap the package". Thus on the phone preordering to my local German bakery: "I was wondering if you could save a schwarzbrot for me." Response: "VVVhy do you always VVVunder???" This is gospel truth.
But truly Germany is not alone. My teach yourself Hungarian book notes: "Hungarians are more direct....there is hardly any understatement in Hungary". Just depends on whom you meet though.... we make exceptions for beautiful young women.
"Germans are often called "rude" or "abrasive"..." This is partly a slight clash of cultures (though we are both European in our thinking of course). But there is an underlying linguistic difficulty in the intonation patterns. English people tend to use a series of slightly rising intonations in a normal sentence with a fall only at the end. Some German-speakers seem to have a falling intonation on each word. To an English ear this often sounds preremptory or like a sargeant-major, especially if the speaker carries over the glottal stops from German. Very difficult to correct in an adult learner, unless they are prepared to spend their Sommerferien in England every year. Often not an issue if one picked up English from native speakers as a child - children get intonation easily.
mit freunlichen Gruessen

Ængelfolc: Another obvious example: "Could you tell me when the bus is due please?" is, of course, inherently more polite than "When is the bus due?".

There is a difference between, "The new hire must be able to work without oversight." and "The new hire must work without oversight." ... at least to me.

The first implies some degree of supervision but not close supervision while the second implies that there will be no supervision ... and no one (officially) to go to if you need help.

Yes, English can be wordy when it comes to politeness. I find myself, usually unnecessarily, trying to translate that wordiness. And don't feel bad Ængelfolc, Americans are often thought of as brusque because we often aren't nearly as wordy at the Brits! :P

jayles your examples are a taddish strawen. I think every day folk in Britain hardly ever find themselves saying 'due'

It would mostly be a straightforward:

'do you know when the next bus is mate/love/duck?'

or

'hi what time is the bus getting here?'

'hiya do you know when the next bus is?'

'hiya do you know when the 175 is getting here?'

'alright do you know what time the bus is coming/meant to get here?'

The coach leaves Kenn (Somerset) at 8:15 and gets into Kippax (Yorkshire) at 15:45

here comes the bus
here arrives the bus

quick, the bus is coming/leaving!
quick, the bus is arriving/departing!

departure lounge - outwards room/hall/yard
departures - outwards
arrival lounge - inwards room/hall/yard
arrivals - inwards
arriving - alighting/endbounding

pickup -

dropoff -

outbound/outwards -

inbound/inwards -

shortstay -

longstay -

overnight -

stopover -

alights -

catch a connecting flight - catch an inlinker flight?

outgoing -

ongoing -

overwintering in the Canaries

oversummering in the Faeroes

take off -

landing -

final approach -

-unloftingwards
-endlofting
-ongeardown
-endpath
-endlag
-endingdown
-flightpath
-endlandwarding
-enddownwarding
-drawdown
-endhaltward

flight 72011 making/on/in its final approach -

flight 72011 making/on/in its endcoming...(incoming/oncoming/homecoming) inending

flight 72011 making its flightsend ?

*flight(s)end* ?

Stanmund: yes indeed; but notice that in all but one case the question was prefixed with the politener "do you know"; this type of question is called "indirect" in the grammar books, as compared to a straight "When is the bus coming?" which might sound too brusque.

Stanmund: the current terms "boarding pass" and "landing card" were in fact coined by a Viking travel agency which offered package summer adventure cruises round Europe with activities such as rape, pillage and plunder. It was big business at the time.

@Stanmund ... aviation language needs to stay as is because English is the standard language of aviation by various treaties. Even in Paris when ground control talks to Air France, it is supposed to be done in English so that all the other flights will understand (BTW, this caused a lot of heartache but was finally enforced).

There are just some areas ... the military and aviation ... that new words would cause more confusion. I was in both the military and aviation and trust me when I say that those institutions would resist any large-scale change.

But for the sake of the exercise, I would say that for approach you could use "end of flight" or "endbit" ... maybe "endflight" or "flightend"; change "final" to "last".

"Your final approach vector is ..." becomes "Yur last endbit run is ..."

I found a forum for Anglish that isn't being used. I don't like the wiki forum ... it's not user friendly and too awkward.

I've already registered ... Here is the formum: http://anglishmoot.forumotion.net/

@jayles: ""I was wondering if you could save a schwarzbrot for me." Response: "VVVhy do you always VVVunder???"" LOL! That's too much! This way of speaking seems unsettled and wavering. It lacks heart/boldness from my standpoint.

Why should there be anything wrong with saying:

"Please save a Schwarzbrot for me."

"Excuse me, when is the bus coming?"

Why do these sentences come across as too sharp? They are more blunt, but that makes them better understood, feelings aside.

One of the things that I have found to be true, talking about too many loans in English, is muddled, murky meanings.

"Here one can talk anent his thoughts..."

I like the word 'anent' and think it should be brought back into use. I do not, however, like it said as in the sentence above.

Anent-- meaning in regard to; about; concerning, but also (in British English) beside; in line with, is a contraction of anefen(t)/ onefen(t)

Instead of saying "proceed", why not say "wend"? It is still said, although not too often.

"to wend forward", "to wend along", "to wend one's way >> "To Canterbury they wend."; "Great voyages to wend."

Thoughts?

Ængelfolc: "Why do these sentences come across as too sharp? They are more blunt, but that makes them better understood, feelings aside."
Yes indeed they are too blunt and leave feelings aside.
Generally if non-native speakers are using English, they are using it for business or in a business situation (incl tourism) or in some university/academic situation; so there is a need to be diplomatic and take into account the feelings or reaction of the person they are dealing with. English people use "softeners" to oil the wheels of negotiation, trading, and working together. So as well as the ones already mentioned you have doubtless noticed "actually", "in fact", "apparently", "it seems that", "as you may be aware" and so on inserted quite often into communication to soften the impact. If you are doing business in English a few extra words might avoid giving unintended offence, depending on whom you are dealing with of course.
There is I know a gulf between "European" and "English" thinking here; for example:-
walking down the street with a beautiful hungarian woman:
Me: Would you like a coffee?
She: Is that a Hungarian question or an English question? If it is hungarian the answer is no. If it is English then it means you want a coffee!

Ængelfolc: I think it was Willy Brandt (whom I heard giving a speech in 1964!) who said something like: If we want to sell abroad we must speak English, but if they want to sell to us, dann muessen sie Deutsch sprechen! Every working day I bow to the boss's wife (korean), put my hands in the prayer position and say "vannakkum" to a tamil colleague, shake hands with a Saudi student and make sure I use only my right hand to give him worksheets, I don't expect the Ukrainians to smile, but the brazilians are always in carnival mode, and I don't ask the Japanese any difficult questions in case they lose face... Man muss flexibel sein, wenn man mit Auslaender verhandelt
Things are no better or worse just different; we all have our quirks.

www.thecheers.org/Entertainment/article_2222_English-Politeness-and-Manners.html

Here's one for ya ... luxury - O.Fr. luxurie, from L. luxuria ... Even in Icelandic ... It's luxus.

Why use anent when one can use about?

As for wend, that has the sense to wander ... or meander ... Besides, it's too close to wind in pronunciation ...

AnWulf: except that "went" (commonly used as the past of "go" instead of "gang" as used in Scotland) presumably comes from "wend", and does not meander.

What a wild and wonderful weekend we had wandering wainlessly through wet weather and winding narrow wynds. With innards washed in the warmth of wintergreens, we went wending along our way whithersoever westward while whistling wearied and waygone, but without a wanhope nor wrinklesome worry in the whole wide world.

Wow! English wordstrings can an half be wrought with a lot of words beginning with 'W-' How many w- words dose the German/Dutchy translations of the wordbatch above give?

The 'w' staff itself is a way upmost Germanic marker. Can't think of any other sister Germanic languages which can randomly let loose so many w- words in any given everyday sentence as English dose. Guessing English would wield a bigger helping of w- words then German thanks to words starting wh- wr- which are wontless to German, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Icelandic etc etc.

off the top of my head....

-ing, wh- wr- -ight -tch -dg(e) thw- unbe- -eigh -ough -awn-

all wordbits which are unmistakesomely English and not found in any others (?)

whomsoever, therein, herein, albeit, albethey, heretofore, nonetheless, howbeit, therinabove, thereinunder, insofar, inasmuch, notwithstanding, wherewithal, moreover etc etc

Have underwielded them myself, but I love the above distinctive blends of English compounds. I like all compounds but don't consider compound words like: 'standalone' 'homemade' 'roadwortiness' etc, the same thing nor breed though. Guessing the above wordblending is not an English speciality, what with all the wanton compounding in German - but does German indeed do the ('insofar' 'whomsoever') brand of compounding or is more the 'standalone' stuff (?)

@Stanmund ... "wainlessly"? You went without a car? "wynd"? - Path?

@Jayles ... Yes, went is a variant of "wende" ... I think the past tense in OE of go was eode/eodest/eodon ... sometimes mergers of words took place like am/was.

But the current definition of "wend" is to go in one direction by an indirect route. But I think, and this is only a guess, that we see a merger/confusion of words here as well. Wind/wend share a the same root and with close pronunciation and meanings (wend meant to turn), they merged. For example, we say ... He wound his way to the top. Well, in OE, the verb to wind was a strong verb ... wind, wand, wunden. We lost wand and wunden, using the French "ou" spelling for "u" and it becomes "wound" ... the a pronunciation shift.

As a side note here ... and maybe somebody can give a definite answer ... we went from 2nd person sing "thu" in Anglo-Saxon/OE to "thou" ... I wonder if the initial pronunciation o "thou" was, in fact, "thu" with a spelling change to use the French "ou" (like vous) and match "you"? Maybe we're mispronouncing it nowadays as "thow"?

I just found the answer to my question ... thou was pronounced as thu. Here is what was written:

... However, I checked M. Goerlach's (1991)"Introduction to Early Modern
English" and Dobson's (1968) "English Pronunciation 1500-1700", on
which Goerlach bases his description, and none of them lists /Dau/
among the variants. For "thou" contemporary orthoepists give
apparently only /Du:/ and unstressed /Du/. ...

...

Should this be so, then the /Dau/ pronunciation is perhaps a modern
"guess" based on the analogy with other words in the
Standard. But if it is a mistake it can't be corrected. ... http://linguistlist.org/issues/7/7-1473.html

@AnWulf

indeed 'wainless(ly)' (without wheels) but more to give the meaning of both 'carfree' 'coachless' 'bikeless' etc, then just without a car.

'wynd' is narrow path amongst houses, but still meant it, even though there was more of a feeling of being out and about the land.

Why do some Americanisms irritate people?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/14130942

Here is my reply to a few of his complaints ...

reliable ... goes back to the 1560s in Scotland ... maybe it just stayed alive in America but died out in England.

truck ... can be traced way back to 1610s in usage and to 1794 as a cart for a heavy load ... lorry only back to 1834 as railroad slang and then used in 1911 for a motor vehicle.

mail/post ... confusion on both sides ... in England mail was letters going overseas and post was letters in-country.

faze ... from the Kentish dialect feeze ... to frighten, alarm ... from Anglo-Saxon (AS) (aka Old English) fesian.

hospitalize ... to put in a hospital ... wow, shortened that up!

wrench ... from AS/OE wrenc ... a tool for twisting.
spanner ... from German spannern

elevator/lift ... I like lift ... it's shorter and appropriate ... but it can be confused for the sense of "giving someone a ride" ... As in, "Can I give you a lift?"

gasoline (gas) vs petrol ...

petrol - from Fr. pétrol (1892); earlier used (1580s) in reference to the UNREFINED substance

gasoline ... from gas + o(i)l + chemical suffix -ine ... for the REFINED petrol.

The short form "gas" can be confused when referring to "natural gas".

hood/bonnet ... it's the old Germanic/French thing with two words with essentially the same meaning.

I'm not sure what the author's complaints about the others are ... perhaps if he were to offer alternatives for comparisons.

I cross posted to http://anglishmoot.forumotion.net/f1-talk-anent-anglish in case someone wants to jump out of this rather lengthy forum and start anew.

AnWulf: There are(or were) indeed extensive differences between Brit/Am word usage. Some are minor: on/at the weekend; in (the) hospital; I've got/gotten; accommodation(s); can't/cahn't. The most widespread one is the American willingness to use past simple instead of present perfect: Am: Did you do you homework yet? Brit: Have you done your homework yet? Am: I lost my wallet. Brit: I've lost my wallet. (ie It is still lost) This makes it really tricky for non-native speakers to learn the grammar. (and tricky tor the teacher too!)

"what with all the wanton compounding in German - but does German indeed do the ('insofar' 'whomsoever') brand of compounding or is more the 'standalone' stuff (?)"

Compounding is the way of Germanic languages:

Insofar >> Insofern, Insoweit

Whomsoever >> Not a compound in German...Wem auch immer

Standalone >> Selbststaendig, Unabhaengig

Therein >> Darin

Herein >> Hierin, Hier

Albeit >> Obschon, Allerdings, Wenn auch, and more

Albethey >> Not that I know of...never heard of this compound in English

Heretofore >> Bisher

Howbeit >> Obgleich

Therinabove >> No...never heard of this in English either

Therinunder >> No...although, thereunder is darunter.

Inasmuch >> Sofern, Insofern

Notwithstanding, Nonetheless >> Trotzdem, Dennoch, Nichtsdestoweniger

Wherewithal >> No...Germans say Noetiges (needed, necessary)

Moreover >> Weiters (South Germany), Ueberdem, Ausserdem, Ueberdies, and many other ways.

@jayles: "This makes it really tricky for non-native speakers to learn the grammar. (and tricky tor the teacher too!)"

Do you mean that it is trickier to learn American English or British English?

Check this out: American guide to British English >> http://www.effingpot.com/

"spanner" >> span (O.E. spann/ spannan, P.Gmc.*spannō/*spannanan) + er (from O.E. -ware, P.Gmc. *-warioz)

I think the BBC article about Americanisms in British English is very true, and one could take the article and apply it to English as a whole. It fits well within this forum/talk. The author sums up nicely his thoughts, which apply to the English debate here, too:

"But what I hate is the sloppy loss of our own distinctive phraseology through sheer idleness, lack of self-awareness and our attitude of cultural cringe. We encourage the diversity offered by Welsh and Gaelic - even Cornish is making a comeback. But we are letting British English wither."

mail/post: mail

Ængelfolc: "Do you mean that it is trickier to learn American English or British English?"
No big difference; just in Brit English one must use present perfect where appropriate (I've lost it) where Am English is not so picky/fussy. Confusing, eh?
"only a rudimentary knowledge of grammar..." However the nuances of the English verb are not that simple. "I've been ironing" -> Ich war gerade beim Buegeln - well that's slightly weird German! I often wish we just had simple present and past in English!
AnWulf: in the North of England one can still hear "thou" inside the family usually pronounced "Tha" eg: "'azthaput'baikint'ginnel?" -> Have you put the bicycle in the sideway/passage? (aztha=Hast thou). There is a film "The Full Monty" with this dialect.

thou

"Stick with MAIL." Aussies do.

"But we are letting British English wither." Which begs the question what exactly is "British English"? The regional and dialect variations are I think fading due to the media, TV in particular and of course American influence in movies and some technical areas such as accounting where all the terminology has become americanized. However some brit english is both ephemeral and weird, if lovable eg "titfer"; "have a butcher's"

@Ængelfolc ... A few of the words that I pointed out weren't so much "Americanisms" as they were words that the Americans continued to use while the Brits dropped them or substituted other words ... like "reliable", "truck", and "faze" in the States have a long histories pre-dating the colonies.

And there are times that they are taking the French derived word over the German derived word ... like using bonnet rather than hood ... and yet he complains about the purity of British English! lol

We should introduce him to Anglish ... That would really make his day.

@Jayles ... I like using the simple past when appropriate ... "I read (past tense... maybe we should spell it "red" as in AS or "redd" to distinguish from red the color) that book." (Action completed) ... as opposed to "I've read that book." ... Flip it and ask the question ... "Did you read this book?" "Have you read this book?" ... I can't really say there is a difference in meaning ... at least not to me. Just a different approach to saying it.

The difference could come in with a time qualifier. "I redd that book every day until I finished it."

I've got is probably almost as common as I've gotten but in American English, "I've got" is used (poorly) for "I have" ... Who has the wrench? ... I've got it!

Personally, I like "gotten". Actually it was originally "getten" but the "e" was changed to an "o" ... "got" was an abbreviation for "gotten". THEN, "got" 'was substituted for the original past tense of "gat". You gotta love the twist and turns! lol

AnWulf:' "Did you read this book?" "Have you read this book?" ... I can't really say there is a difference in meaning '. So much depends on the context and situation. One must choose the example carefully to explain. Perhaps "Did she come?" and 'Has she come?" are easier, the second question really asks whether she is still here. A good rule of thumb is if there is a specific time mentioned or implied then do not use the perfect tense. This works nearly all the time. Also In Brit-speak one must use the perfect tense with "just", "already" "yet" "ever" ; so to the Brits "Did you do your homework already?" sounds wrong, (or Am).
Brits also use "I've got" for "I have" (possession); I think that Am uses "i've gotten" instead of "I've become" ; but maybe it depends on where you are from in the states,
i would not profess to understand Americans......... ;=)))

Ængelfolc: "Ich habe tatsaechlich mich gerade gefragt, ob Sie schon darueber Bescheid tatsaechlich wissen, dass Sie wohl zur Zeit in der Lage seien, das englische Hoeflichkeitssystem tatsaechlich zu akzeptieren, oder?