...Naturally, when I say 'English frumefriendly ' then I mean from a purely speech-tongue perspective and not some misguided rightwing idea of hallowed nationalism/ landishness.

Nice one, Thorn! Wonderfully put!

I don't really have a blog, as I started one and got side tracked somewhat by a 'conservation' project / buildwardship undertaking - I do however, have some contact to David Cowley who wrote How We'd Talk If The English Had Won in 1066, he is of likemind with you and I that there is a stead for English to be sheered into a more English frumefriendly shape again.

I bidye to forgive my spelling in the last post, but it's late here... I hope, most of all, it's clear.

Many of the things you've posted I agree with...

I think English should attempt to purge itself of unnecessary foreign loanwords, and copy the Icelandic's idea of creating its own Germanic root replacements for business, government, medical and clerical wordhoard.

If 'sound' truly had roots, as a verb, in OE... then so be it. Like I said, it's a shame that the OED won't record this fore-1066-overtaking input of the word into English. But they're Latin/Norman French loving dolts...and that, as they say, is that.

Re The Anglish Moot, it bothers me, as Ive said before. The Anglish Moot self-kithed that it is only there as a group experiment and sees itself as a hobby object alone rather than a realistic movement for English wordawending. That's not my wont. The difficulty of eftlearning my own language notwithstanding, I thinks it worth it for a truer, better English language... one that is less ambiguous and eath to follow back to basic building blocks instead of oppressively introduced.

Cheers Thorn, and no ofthank taken... How interesting that the word was in use before 1066, what date is the OE excerpt/cutout from?

I'm not too worried about the lack of high words, as they can happily be newly created by piecing together older words to make a true guess at what things most likely wouldve become.

However, 'sound' is very important and I wish the OED *spits* would have the balls to record that the word was being used before the downfall at Hastings.

Well, Thorn, thanks for the ' Most of the current suggestions for its replacement are poor' . I assure you I only put forward words that have genuinely had some meaning and use in the stead of the word 'sound', for instance 'ring' as in the phrase ' to ring true '... but that all aside... could you give me a text example taken from OE English where the word 'sound/ son' was used? Not being awkward with you, just really quite taken aback that the word precedes 1066... that's good news, I love it when a word can be taken back from the supposed slew the Normans gave us.

I must say 'wrighten' clinks good enough to me. Thereto, the added boon that it is different enough homophonically/ likeloudly not to be confused with 'write' or 'right', as I truly think when trying to bring words back into nooting it is of utmost need that they aren't confused with words already in daily speech... otherwise they just sound odd and don't latch on.

BTW, was there a genuine word for 'sound' (as in hearing) in OE, middle English? I'm fairly positive that although 'clang' is given direct Latin roots in the OED that it must've come through Germanic sources first, otherwise I can't see that Dutch and German would have ' klingen ' (past klang) and ' klinken' alike. As the likelihood of them randomly, and liketimely creating similar meaning and sounds is too far fetched and co-incidental. I've chosen 'clink' as the dictionary gives it an uncertain frume(origin) but relates it to a Low German source, meaning that it was probably already in English and was just never really recorded. I know there were other variants such as ' ring ' and ' clam' (OE hlem as in 'clam up') but it's one of those annoyingly regular words where the Frenchy word has inrooted itself utterly.

Right Angelfolk and A Wolf, before this turns into a heroic pissing competition over who can cite the most wayward looking English sources... :P

I want to ask if you can give us a word instead of 'manufacture'... Why? Because I hate it.

@Anwulf,

I think a pat on the back and a wee tipple are called for for such sterling work.

The thing, we likely overlook too often is that Norman French stopped variant forms of a verb/ word becoming dominant for manifold meanings in English. So as in German where you take the base verb 'setzen' and then by simply adding prefixes you alter the meaning, cf. 'besetzen' 'zusetzen' 'aufsetzen' 'ersetzen' 'einsetzen' 'umsetzen' etc... This basic principle has cost us multitudinous words that would have been so basic in sound that to our overly sesquipedalian/ bigwordwielding modern ears we would laugh them off for their childish sound.

It's out of this premise that I used the word ' beheld' as a noun, for as odd as the article before it sounds the concept is fairly light to follow.

''The man was mighty in shape, steadfastly built, with arms that could stop a speeding farewain (vehicle) in a swipe. No wonder the folk saw him as a beheld, a lodestar in the night - one who could fight and smite for them ''

As Ive said before, I truly believe small passages of text and careful controlling of words in context are the way forward. The academia (thanks Aengelfolc/ Anwulf) is essential in arriving us at an agreed wordhoard which we can use with confidence. But written experimentation is really the only way to solidify this.