@jayles: Thank you for shedding light on what you meant. I better understand. Good show acknowledging "remark" as Frankish. I think it belongs to English. It is a Germanic word with a little Latin feel.

Now, I would not call those folks you brought up as having "European culture". Rather, I say they'd have a Western upbringing as set against an Arab or Asian background. There has always been a sharp split between the Eastern and the Western halves of the World. What is "European culture"? No one can say well what that means. Saying "Western culture", however, takes in all of the many folkways on the Eurasian headland, as well as, the lands further West beyond the British Isles (Iceland, Greenland, Canada, and the U.S.). Indeed, South America and it's folkways are something altogether unlike what one thinks of as "Western culture". As I said, it's not so straightforward and open to one's World outlook (as you said).

"Foot in mouth" is all I could think of when I read your brush with the Japanese fellow. You made it out okay, though, right?! You forgot to speak Roman-English, huh? LOL

Your "soapbox" remark (Frankish) seems like back-handed flattery (Frankish *flat). It was not meant to come across as big-headed or in an overbearing kind of way. I am sure that the Salmon feels the flow of the river water is overbearing when it swims upstream, too. It is hard to think politically "upstream". I was only wanting to stir up some thoughts...to have the mind opened. If I have done that for one reader of this blog, I am happy and hopeful.

Your E.U. remark didn't come across as "throwaway". It seemed to be written in such a way as to back your thought ( and oddly, the E.U.'s) about doing away with the "cultural identity" of the folks living in the Eurasian headland.

As for throwing out all of the German words, I say no. As I have written earlier, I am for keeping any and all Germanic words, as well as, some Latin and French (and maybe Greek). I am against over-borrowing and the seemingly willful watering down of Germanic English.

You are right about "schmuck". In German, der Schmuck ('jewelry', 'decoration') and schmuck (adj. 'dapper', 'neat') are likely not where the Eastern Yiddish word "schmok" came from. The Old Polish word "smok" ('dragon') is much more likely given its earliest spelling and Yiddish meaning. Although, weirder things have been shown to be true!

"...whatever..." seems scornful and unacknowledging to me. I do give you, though, that those folks all do live in what is marked as Europe. As for it being "good enough", well, that's for another time...

Thanks for your thoughts, jayles! Machs gut!

@jayles:

"...it doesn't make a lot of sense to say this is Germanic, and that is Greek, when in fact they are both European, and sometimes muddled together. The EU is there for a reason."

This is away from English, but on what true ground is the E.U. built? Is "sameness" a smart, worthy goal? The E.U. is trying to be a "United States of Europe", but can it ever really be that? Is wresting away folks right to be who they are an upright thing to do? Wherefore came the E.U. into being? Has it rightly grown beyond that? Are the folks really better off? Do the Germans, Danes, Brits, Swiss, Czech, Poles, Dutch, French, asf, need a "parent government"? Read the "Lisbon Treaty", or look it up. If one hasn't read it, it will be an eye-opener. Guaranteed (Frankish *warand)!

Germans and Greeks are folks live on the bit of Earth that is better marked as the Headland of Eurasia. The British Isles are not thought of as Europe (politics aside). Who says, "I'm European." What does that mean other than "I was born and live somewhere on the headland called Europe"? Loosely, Germans, Spaniards, Greeks, Italians, French, asf, have a slender link to each other, but so what of it? All of these folks made their own ways of speaking, doing,and being. Overall, they are NOT the same folks.

This mixed-bag of lands and folks, on the whole, is what is so lovely about the World, whether we talk about today or yesterday. And, yes, they do sometimes mix together, but again, so what? That doesn't make for a "European" way of life, anymore than the U.S. and Canada share a "North American" way of life. It must be said that the U.S. and Canada do have many things that are alike, but there are also those things which make the two truly unalike.

"Sameness", within this framework of understanding, it seems to me, crushes the heart of what it is to truly be a human being. Danke, ich verzichte.

Now back to Ænglisc...

@jayles: More (agent provocateuring)?

I think you are right about one thing: The propaganda of "history". You brought up a few: King Arthur (Historical misgivings, not yet borne out), King Arthur at The Battle of Mons Badonicus (unsettled that Arthur was there, but not likely). Both of these are wielded often by Celtic newspeak firebrands, even when the truth is rather clouded and murky.

In Tacitus' Agricola (xv), it is put forth that the Iceni were heartened by the Cherusci's uprising against the Romans in Germany: "Sic Germanias excussisse iugum: et flumine, non Oceano defendi." They thought, "if the Germans can do it, why can't we?" The Germans unwittingly helped the Iceni in a roundabout way. Germanic propaganda? Maybe.

Maybe Boudicca was trying to make up for Antedios (King of the Iceni, 25-47 A.D.) selfishness. Antedios forsook the Iceni time and again for Roman gifts and backing. Antedios chose not to stand against Claudius' takeover in 43 A.D., and did not back the Iceni uprising in 47 A.D. (the year in which he was murdered for his falsehoods). More newspeak?

It does not seem anyone is saying that an "Anglish Wordbook" is, or should be, more welcome than a mixed English one. The froward seems to be true. Those who speak up for England's (or anyone's) Germanic background seem to always be beset with hateful mockery (Old Saxon *mokkian, *mukkian) and scorn (P.Gmc. *skarnjan). At the same time, these same foes of English "Germanic-ness" always try to fasten the lowest kind of shame to the thought of it, as well as, its upholders and friends. It is wrong-headed to eschew the truth of England's Teutonic side, as it is to do the same to England's Celtic side.The truth, as is oft said, is somewhere in-between.

When speaking about "Britain", I take it that you mean Romano-Britain. After all, the Romans stormed into Brittania in 43 A.D., and did not leave until they had to leave (the Roman Empire was crumbling). 43 A.D. is widely thought to be the beginning of British history. Or, are you talking about the folks before the Romans came (Old Stone Age of Britain to 43 A.D.)? The earliest writings about Britain come from the Pytheas in 325 B.C., called the folks he saw 'Prettanoi' (Prettani, whence Brittania).

Stephen Oppenheimer, in his book 'The Origins of the British', puts forth the belief that folks in Britain, before the Germanics came, did not evenly speak Celtic tongues, and that there may have been British folks who spoke Germanic tongues even before the Romans came.

I put forth that speech is the carrier of a folks way of life. You say Celtic is the "birthright tongue of Britain". If this is true, does that not deem that everyone in "Britain" is of a Celtic folkway instead of a Germanic folkway? The truth would look to be something else. Things don't seem to be so straightforward.

What must be rightly asked is what tongue is the birthright of the Germanic English, not the Romano-British folks? That is what has been, and is being talked about here. In rightly the same way that the backers of Celtic (Goidelic and Brythonic) hedge against "linguistic corruption and extinction", so too do the backers of Germanic English have that same right.

I cannot understand why there is, or would be any, strong, angry stand against keeping (or trying to keep) English as Germanic as can be.

@wlyan138: Thanks for your feedback. How do I go about helping make the Anglish Moot Old English Wordbook? What kind of help do they need over at Anglish Moot?

I would like nothing more than to bring back some of the Ænglisc words (like woruldwīsdōm (education), uþwitegung (philosophy), rīmcræft (mathematics), bōccræft (literature), tungolcræft (astronomy), asf.), at least, for the English-speaking landfolk (native) in the land (country) itself. For business (which is more and more globalize), we'd still have to know English glob-speak (with all the Latinate, Greek, and other foreign influences). Sad, but true.We'd have to be twīspræcisc (bi-lingual).

English has never lost its "Germanicness", it has only been overgrown with outlandish words and academic swindling. This overgrowth can, however, be trimmed away.

My goal is to have English spoken, at all times, with words already in the wordbook. Those words are being thoughtlessly overlooked only to have an outlandish-word put in its stead.

@jayles: Silly!

"Scrimmage" is Germanic, by the way. It is misshaped 'skirmish', from Frankish *skirmjan.

I think you got the score wrong, though.

@wlyan138: There are already words for many of the things you've mentioned:

Modern English Ænglisc (Old English)
- mathematics * rīmcræft
- illusion * gedwimor (Mod.Eng. "dwimmer")
- to retain * aethabban, forhabban
- discovery * gemetednes
- temperate * gneð(e)n
- to observe (watch) * bewarenian, beweardian
- to exclude (shut out) * atynan
- to predict * foresæcgan, bodian, forwitegian, forecwæðan...

These are just a few of the "word-for-word" examples. Verbs are stickier, since there is not normally a catch-all. Germanic is very specific in its meanings.

Why not use English already in use ('verbal phrases', asf)? Some examples:

to exclude = leave out
to retain = keep, withhold
discovery = unearthing
temperate = mildly warm, Springlike
to observe = watch, see, behold, witness
illusion = seeming, ghost, misbelief, daydream,
to predict = forebode, forecast, foretell, forespeak, soothsay, see coming, asf.

Sadly, English has no modern English word for "mathematics". What a shame. What do you think?

Check out this good book: King Harold II and the Bayeux Tapestry
by Gale R. Owen-Crocker.

@jayles: How clever! Good show! Too bad we will most likely never know the whole truth of Harold II's death. It is understood that Harold II died at Senlac Hill. Who knows for sure. The "arrow in the eye" seems highly unlikely, though. Take a look at the Bayeux tapestry. The tapestry goes against much of the eye-witness tales of Harold II's death. Very thought-stirring!

Cheers!

Other Germanic word that English speakers should not eschew:

* eschew (from Frankish *skiuhan "dread, avoid, shun," from P.Gmc. *skeukhwaz. 'Shy" is from the same root. Borrowed into Italian (schiavare) and Old French (eschiver)
* ease/ easy (O.Fr. aisie, likely from a Germanic or Celtic source. cf. OE ēaþe, *auþijaz (“easy, pleasing”), from *auþiz.) Conflicting forms in Romance point to an external, non-Latin origin.
* Norman (a "Northman", from O.Fr. Normanz, plural of Normand, from O.E. word for "a Norwegian"-Norðman. "Nortmanni" seems to be the source of O.Fr. Normand)
* brioche (N.Fr. broyer, from from W.Gmc. *brekan "to break".)
* carp (from O.Fr. carpe (13c.), from V.L. carpa (c.575), from a Germanic source (cf. M.Du. carpe, Du. karper, O.H.G. karpfo, Ger. Karpfen), possibly Gothic *karpa.)
* trot (from O.Fr. trot (12c.), from Frankish *trotton-variant of 'tread')
* scallop ( from O.Fr. escalope. Latin words with initial sp-, st-, sc- usually acquired an e- when borrowed by Old French; from Frankish, from P.Gmc. *skælo; cf. O.N. skalpr)
* robe (O.Fr. robe "long, loose outer garment", from Frankish *rauba, *rouba "booty, spoils, stolen clothes"; from Proto-Germanic *raubō, *raubaz, *rauban.)
* ribald (from O.Fr. ribaltfrom Old Frankish *rīben , from Proto-Germanic *wrībanan)
* egret (dim. from Low Frankish *haigro (“heron”))
* furbish (from O.Fr. forbiss-, from Frankish *furbjan (“to clean, polish”))
* tarnish (M.Fr. ternir , from Frankish *tarnjan (“to cover up, conceal, hide”))

It would seem that the true bearing of "insular French" is shrinking by the word.

More to come...

@jayles:

Thank you, but what you wrote is well understood, and is a given.The writings from Norway, Denmark, Normandy/France, England, and the Church, at the least, should all be likewise regarded to get somewhere near the truth of what happened. What I wrote is founded on what is known from these writings. They are all we have to go on.

A good book to read about this is: "The Norwegian invasion of England in 1066"
by Kelly DeVries (1999). It stirs up many thoughts and "what-if's" in one's mind, but the book is well grounded by books from all sides. Give it a read, you'll not be sorry.

Stir (O.E. styrian, from P.Gmc. *sturjanan). German 'stören' is from the same root, and can mean a lot of things hinged up what is being said: disturb, interrupt, annoy, bother, perturb, upset, jam a radio signal, commove, asf. It is really a great catch-all word that makes its meaning from what is being talked about.

'Stir' has many great ways it can be put to work:

* (n.) "You caused quite a stir (impression)."
* (tr.v.) "Don't stir up anything with my mother."
* (tr.v.) "That music stirs (rouses) my soul."
* (itr.v.) "...not a creature was stirring (slightly moving)..."
* (itr.v.) "Stir the soup."

'Stir' was also a slang word for "prison", whence "stir-crazy".

Another French gilding of Germanic:

Array (from L. ad- "to" + Frank. *ræd- "ready").