English words taken from Latin, French and Greek are made up of parts whose meanings are either wholly unknown or at least unclear to the English speaker. These strange (foreign) words are made up of wordbits (morphemes) that do not shape any part of the grounding wordstock (vocabulary) of the English speaker, outside their brooking (usage) in these strange words. Take the word “compare,” of Latin birth. Broken up, its wordbits are ‘com’ and ‘pare’, oneway switchedly (literally) ‘with’ + ‘equal’. The semantic outspring “source” of the word becomes clear only when the Latin wordbits are overbrought (translated) oneway switchedly into their English samenesses (albeit “equal” is of Latin birth). The same goes for the word “support”, its wordbits are ‘sub’ + ‘port’, of Latin birth, which oneway switchedly mean ‘under’ + ‘carry’ (albeit “carry” is of Latin birth). Here too, the semantic outspring of the word support (to carry or bear the weight of) becomes clear only if and when the Latin wordbits whence the word comes become known through overbringing into the English samenesses. Put otherwise, ‘com’ would have meant something to the Latin speaker, but it means nothing to the English speaker, nor does ‘pare’, ‘sub’, so forth. The reason for this is that ‘com' and ‘pare’, and many other strange wordbits are not English, in the sense that they mean nothing on their own to the English speaker since they are not part of the English tongue on their own. This is unlike the wordbits ‘under’ and ‘carry’ for example, which, when bonded, make up a much more logical English word for the word “support’, insofar as the logicalness of a word is even to the understandability of its parts.
Also take the word “sympathy,” from the Greek ‘syn’ + ‘pathos’, oneway switchedly yielding ‘with’ + ‘feel’, which could yield “withfeel” as an optional replacement for the word sympathy. “Withfeel” could in turn be switched to “withache’’ or at least “withsuffering” (albeit “suffer” is of Latin birth), to catch the meaning of the word “sympathy”.
So extreme is this beclouding of so much of the English wordstock, that we get severely hard-to-make-out-the-meaning-of words like “inebriate”, wholly incomprehensible to the English speaker from its wordbits, since it holds the wordbit ‘ebri’, from the latin ‘ebrius’, meaning drunk.
Models such as these are rife within English, and although strange words in a hood richen the tongue, not having ‘pure’ English samenesses of them, or not brooking these ‘pure’ samenesses, poorens the tongue. This is especially true for strange words not in common brooking, and so whose meaning can not even be made clear through it being a common word (e.g. inebriate), unlike the “foreign” word “compare”, for example. As for words like “compare”, whose meanings are clear to every native English speaker, because of them being an everyday word, it still has a strange feel to it. The English speaker might brook the word, “compare”, and know what it means, but they do not know why it means what it means. They have no link to the word, it is strange to them and does not resonate within their wordstock.