Gallitrot: I agree with you, and I'm rather earnest about working to make this a success. I would truly like to see it have a wider take up. It will take a lot to make that happen, but that's fine, I'm willing to put work into it for quite a while. This is no hobby for me.

Can I ask where else you talk or post about this project? Do you have a personal website, a blog, or something? I'm always looking for new things and new work.

Jayles: I think at the moment (or even far into the future) we should call this not a language, but an "invitation". There are an awful lot of misbeliefs about French Latin and Greek in English, and like you say they're taught even in schools with "proper" words for things. We're basically asking folk to think again about the words they use, but without needfully having all the answers.

As for "abstract", I always think that using a calque should be the last thing we do. It often leads to ugly words, and ones without clear meanings. We should start with the meaning first, say of "a thought or characteristic apart from any physical or specific object", and work from there. We can then say what category of things it belongs to, in this case most likely "thought". So it's a kind of thought, but what kind? Well, it's completely thought and deliberately nothing but! So maybe "utterthought" or "sheerthought" would do, but they do sound a little clunky. Maybe "allthought" is better? I don't know, and I'm not in a position to choose. Like I said, it's only an invitation to think differently about our language, and I can't choose for anybody.

The quote comes from the Consolation of Philosophy, which was translated by Alfred, so would date to the late 800s. I don't happen to have a copy of that work, so I'm reliant on the quote from Bosworth-Toller being correct, however they give some other quotes of the word's use. Also, the Middle English Dictionary also gives "sound" as having roots in Old French and Old English.

By the way, the same seems to be true of "market", which is not surprising given it's appearance in so many other Germanic languages. For me this is good as I don't really care about where a word ultimately comes from, only how it got into the language. It's the FLaG words which came in after 1066 which I'm most worried about.

PS Is everybody here at http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/anglish/? That's a much better place to discuss things than this thread.

Gallitrot, please don't my suggestion that all the replacements for "sound" are poor as knocking you! I've tried them all out myself—including "ring" which I liked the best—and found them all wanting. The wordstock we have to work with seems to be lacking in many high level categories, with many of the words concentrated at the lower levels. That's understandable, but it sucks when we need to find the kind of word that "sound" is. I've just been thinking about "matter", but it's so high level that it's hard to get something really good. The best I can come up with is "thing" as a mass noun. Not awful, but I would like better if I can.

Anyway as for a quotation, my knowledge of the word comes from Bosworth–Toller. The first quote in that is, "Nán neát nyste nǽnne andan tó óþrum for ðære mergþe ðæs sónes . . . Hé wæs oflyst ðæs seldcúþan sónes", which it references as coming from Alfred's Consolation of Philosophy. The meaning is given as "music or musical sound", from which the modern meaning could easily derive. Indeed, one of the earliest citations in Middle English come from Ancrene Riwle, and the "seon" in one manuscript is given as "song" in another, showing that the meanings were still close.

"Sound" (or at least it's forebear "son") had already been borrowed from Latin in Old English. Even though today's word may owe something to French influence, the borrowing itself doesn't. I don't know how important it is to you to know that it came into the language before 1066, but for me it makes it so much more acceptable. Most of the current suggestions for its replacement are poor, so I'm happy to use it.

Gallitro: if you had the time, I'm sure you could show that many of the most liked songs in English are those with few FLaG words.

Ængelfolc, I think that statistic is a little old. There once was some theory about a language from which Germanic borrowed lots of words early in its history, but it's now thought not to be true. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_substrate_hypothesis

I agree that "letholder", or something based on "let" is likely the best word.

Well, we disagree, but that's okay. Indeed, not only is it okay, but diversity is good. Lots of different approaches will give us more to work with and choose from. Can I ask if you have a website for your work?

For me, the problem with "wissel" is that's it's not a widely known word. It might be Scots, but that's still beyond the knowledge of many English speakers. We would be putting upon people to ask them to learn a new word when one isn't needed. If we can avoid that we should, as folk have a limited amount of patience.

"Change" might be Celtic at root, but the real issue should be how a word entered English. If it came straight from Celtic, that's fine, as it was borrowed without duress. But as it came by way of French, we have to ask whether it would have otherwise been borrowed. That's the way I see it: http://rootsenglish.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/1-on-good-grounds/

I would say that many of the meanings of "change" can be covered with "shift" or "switch", without bringing in a new word. We should avoid a new word here if we can, for there are other places where we cannot avoid it.