Gallitrot: I remember having the same conversation some years ago (like 2005). I argued for -ric at the time, but I remember that Bryan Parry (a great guy) won me over to rike. I *think* the key point was that the sound in -ric only came about through being on the end of a word, and rike was the standalone word. But I can't remember, and I can't find the emails or pages where the discussion took place. I'm happy to have the discussion again if there was an appropriate venue.

On the discussion about state and government and administration: there's clearly a split between the territory, the structures, the possessions, the employees of a country, let's say Canada, and the people who make up the Harper "government", that is, elected people and those whom he appointed, and who will change when a different party is elected. Regardless of what we call them in English, the first is the "rike", and the second is what we're trying to figure out, whether we call it "government" or "administration". Basically, the people who temporarily control the rike.

Ængelfolc: the state and its bureaucracy can just be referred to as the "rike". In England there's no distinction made with "state", so I don't see why we should seek one. "Government" in my mind are the elected or appointed people who rule or run the rike for a given time, and that's what I would like to call "rikeholders" or the like.

As for "republic", I'm curious what the difference is between that and "a democracy" (that is, a democratic country, and not the idea of democracy itself). For the latter I would definitely just say "folkdom", that is, something which is of or pertains to the folk, but I know that other definitions of "republic" wouldn't fit within that.

Jayles: your thought of a benchmark is right, and we need to think how words that we say look or feel to the reader. I would take it further and say there are three steps to this:

1) Sniff it out: can a reader even know that it's not "English"? If we can write without them even thinking there is something other about our words, then that's the greatest writing we can do.

2) Work it out: even if a reader can spot some oddness in our words or wording, can they at least work out what is meant? If yes, then that's great, as it means that they don't need a helping hand and can still feel it's "their" tongue.

3) Find it out: the last step is whether somebody can look up a word and find its meaning. Hopefully that will become a softer thing to do once we have a wordbook, but it still speaks against any truly odd words being written. We must learn to make such words only one or two, here and there, in what we write.

As for "rikedom", you're right that it can't be looked up. It's not even a good word for "government". "Rike" means, more or less, "state", and that can be looked up quickly. But the "-dom" ending makes words that are of the meaning of "something ruled over or the state of", such as wisdom, freedom, kingdom, boredom, and so on. "Rikedom" would then mean something like "territory of a state" or its "limits of sovereignty". "Government" isn't among the meaning it could have, but I don't know yet how to say that word.

"Overlordbody" is a thought, but I wonder if there is something better. I know in Old English a new king would "feng to rice", which means "take hold of the kingdom", and we still talk about folk "losing grip on power". So maybe we can work from that, moreso upon the thought that a rike outlasts anybody who runs its, as they're often only there for four or five years. Maybe "rikeholder" would work? Such as "the rikeholders have chosen to go to war come what may".

Jayles: you're right on the money with phrasal verbs. I have a draft post for on my blog waiting to be published, but you've beaten me to it! It's such a rich seam in modern English, we just can't ignore it.

Gallitrot: Just email me at the address I gave, and I'll send you S as well! Like a sneak forelook for you, but early feedback for me.

Ceolfrid: I don't yet know how I'll send out the draft! Probably announce it on my blog and the Anglish Moot list. But hey, I can send you a little now if you're really interested. Email me at rootsenglish@ymail.com and I'll send you a letter. It'll probably be S as that's the longest one. As I said, it's mostly current English words at the moment, with only a few additions. I hope in time to come to slowly add in new words which I feel have a good chance of being successful.

You have to promise to give feedback though!

Ceolfrid: I'm currently writing a wordbook of all modern English words that aren't FLaG (French, Latin and Greek). It won't contain all the suggestions of everybody, but it will put a floor under the whole project, meaning that we can know every word we can use without having to look them up elsewhere. It will hold some new words, but only those least contentious. Also, it will be a "proper" wordbook, listing not just headwords, but their definitions too, like any other you might find.

I think the first draft should be available for feedback by June, and so something like a finished version a few months later. I've been on with it for years, but it's getting near now.

AnWulf: It's okay if you don't like the Anglish Moot Yahoo Group, that's fine. But this isn't a good place to talk and discuss. It only allows comments in one single thread, and we have no control over how it's organized or what happens to it. I have a blog http://rootsenglish.wordpress.com/ which I've been doing for a month, and I think everybody else should blog too. That way we each have space to get our thoughts down and invite others to comment directly upon them. At this time we need everybody to write in order to build up a critical mass, so to speak, of workfulness and really have the groundwork for a proper community.

Ængelfolc: When I say "naturally" I simply mean replaced with a word that is not FLaG. We can think of third person plural pronouns as a good example, which gave way to ones from Old Norse without FLaG input. Nobody would suggest they be brought back, and there's no need for them to be brought back.

Another such word, and one which has been brought back by some, is "fraign" or "frane". Why? "Ask" won out, but it's also from English, so why replace it? It doesn't matter if our main verb for that action is different from Old English, or that some Old English word isn't in English today. It makes not one bit of difference. So why do this?

We sometimes need to bring back old words when there is no other choice, but it's a big ask for potential readers or speakers to take them up, so we should limit it where we can. We could bring back hundreds upon hundreds of old words, but it makes it less and less likely that anybody outside of a small audience is going to be interested. I want to see us be successful with this, and that's not going to happen if we just make an "Old English Lite".

I have heard of Cowley's book, but have not read it. It seemed more "what if" than a serious suggestion, but maybe I was wrong? However, I must say that I'm not of the belief that just because a word was in Old English it should now be in English. So many words went quite naturally, and many others are so long dead, that there's no point inlivening them. I would rather first work with what we have, and only slowly look to dialects and recently dead words. That way we have the greatest chance of winning folk over, as then they will see it is only a "kind" of English, and not something otherworldly.

If you do decide to blog or write anywhere else, do let me know. I would also like to read whatever you put on your old blog, if it's still up. As I said, I'm just happy to read what others are doing.