|ℹ||This See other drawths.is a a or a that has arisen in the making of Anglish.|
I don't know about you, but for some time I've been rather hacked off with the overly unfettered frenchfriendly weighting, which bolsters the wrong foretaking (assumption) that many English words/ names have a French or Latin root. As byspell, ( for example) I newly saw on a webside, giving the root of first-names, 'Edward' wrongly writ up as being of French frume(origin).... I mean, kindly, do some homework on outlandish tongues and your own before writing such midden-slops! Another webside, which likes to lean towards 'bleary' with many of its wordroot write-ups is the 'Online Etymology Dictionary' a fair few of their ingivings seem to show Latinish-French grounds as being the farthermost inlet for a lot of words that have clear linkwords in German/ Dutch; and whose words forerun the Norman inflowings.
Another lorebus, take the word 'allow' now it's always given as coming from Old French 'aloer', however, it doesn't bother to name Theodish's 'erlauben' which has the like-English dialect word from near Düsseldorf 'helau'... and no the French didn't settle that landstead, before anyone asks. It's sunderly this kind of sottish oversight that makes many English speakers believe they prattle a kind of Latin. More of us should be far more watchful and mindful of how bookbuilders and wordwriters shape their atellings(definitions) when bewriting how a word arose. One should awear(avoid) an overly firdly atgang (militant approach) when berating academics for their forechoosing Latinish-French word upsprings - but I think, if a mistake is made once then it doesn't mean no one should fand (attempt) to upright it.