FANDOM


Bloom names
Does anyone know inborn English names for blooms? (like jasmine, tulip, and so forth)
Sunbloom overset from Ger. Sonnenblume _ wisly(certainly) not attested

I will say though that blossom or bloom can be brooked for any bloom wontedly. ~~~~Wordforword

Prefix/Suffix "forefastening/?" leaf Edit

Hello,

I was thinking we should make some kind of forefast "prefix" leaf (if there isn't already one). We've been doing a good job, but what is it worth if a reader does not know what for- or be- means? What about -kin or -lore? Which should make a leaf for this! ~~~~

"L" Wordbook Edit

Um... what happened to Wordbook L? Wordforword (talk) 23:06, August 15, 2017 (UTC)

Allright, "Wordbook L" got fixed. - (Alfredikus)

Ahh, okay. Sorry for the late answer! -wordforword

"Cwide/quidelore"? "Swotel"? Edit

Hello,

Only one thing, do we need "cwide/quidelore" for linguistics? we do have "speechcraft" which betokens its meaning a lot more the "cwide/quide" does. By the way... What is SWOTEL? I can't seem to find it anywhere on the web. I don't know what it means since this word is put kind of everywhere. What does it mean and is there a better word?

Wordforword (talk) 18:10, July 5, 2017 (UTC)

I think we should keep 'quidelore' to make Anglish more manifoldly in his wordhoard.
"What is SWOTEL? I can't seem to find it anywhere on the web." Me neither, seems we should clean this random word from the moot. - Alfredikus
Okay, I'll see to it. Whenever the word shows, all we need to do is find a better word.




- Wordforword

I think I found where swotel comes from (OE Sweotol). There are no links to this word in New English today and there are so many spellings of this word on here (sweetle/sweetel/swotle/swotel). I don't think it is worth the time...  Wordforword (talk) 18:51, July 9, 2017 (UTC)

On the word "beauty" and "beautiful" Edit

Hello,

So I have somewhat of a mishap on the words "beauty" and "beautiful". There is indeed a word in English today that comes from true English-roots. That word is "sheen", but here's is what i feel isn't right. The word "sheen" feels way to sharp in the mouth and the ears. So I brought forth the slightly older word "Schon". This is, word for word, from the near end of Mid. English. 70 years before ME ended. It feels a lot better in the mouth and to the ears though. So beauty would be "schonhood/ness", and beautiful would mean "schon". If it can't work out I understand, i mean, we do have "sheen," but feels to sharp to the ears anent the "ee". I have also thought about keeping "Sheen" to stick with the English of today, and sticking with English's roots and alikeness to Low German. In Low German, the NHG "schön" becomes "schöön" (shoon -> shehn). 

So schon! -> So beautiful!

So sheen! -> So beautiful!   Let the lede choose!

Wordforword (talk) 16:11, June 25, 2017 (UTC)

Pages without Categories Edit

It says there are 775 Pages Without Categories. Does anyone know what this means? How does one list a page in an undershed (distinguished) category? Do we need to take care of this?

Wordforword (talk) 18:27, June 20, 2017 (UTC)

On the word "move" Edit

Under the word "move", I think it is right to only put "beweigh". The NHG and Du. are bewegen which comes from the word "weigen" which means "to weigh". Bewegen came from be- + weigen the 'i' in weigen was dropped over time. Beway means "because, by way", and bewegen does not come from be- + weg.

I do think the "beway" should be nimmed out 

I bid you to see Wiktionary for "bewegen" and "beweigh" 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bewegen#German

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/beweigh

By the way, wiktionary has a slew of true English words on there. Only need to seek out the words you want to find

Wordforword (talk) 03:38, June 16, 2017 (UTC)

I have taken out "Beway" since it was not overset right from the Germanic "Bewegen".  The word bewegen comes from Be- + wiegen where wiegen means "to weigh"  Wordforword (talk) 18:44, June 19, 2017 (UTC)

Flag! And High.Edit

I'd like to have an Anglish flag. I design flags, so I can do that if we discuss symbols. Also, why don't we call Anglish "High English"? It was proposed earlier, and it fits with High Icelandic, High Norwegian, and High German. So, yeah. {{SUBST:User:CrabKakeZ MD027/sig}} 01:55, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

Please? {{SUBST:User:CrabKakeZ MD027/sig}} 17:38, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
I would really like it if someone would answer. I want a flag or symbol. And "Anglish" might not work as a name. {{SUBST:User:CrabKakeZ MD027/sig}} 05:42, June 12, 2013 (UTC)--
Pleeeeease...? Answer? --Me! or... my talk side! 17:55, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease? I'd reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally like an answer. --Me! or... my talk side! 21:18, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
     How about a white dragon rampant on a red field.
That's already the Anglo-Saxon flag, but I did take a few tries, and here's my current idea: http://shikku27316.deviantart.com/art/High-English-Flag-Proposal-Redo-393281668 --CrabKakeZ MD027 01:27, August 19, 2013 (UTC)`1`
I told you to dump the dragon though...
Why didn't you respect the colours either?
Anglofrench (talk) 10:02, August 20, 2013 (UTC)
But the dragon was the symbol the Anglo-Saxons fought under when fighting those French, it just made sense to me. Also, I did use a navy-blur thing, not sure what you meant, though...... --`CrabKakeZ MD027 15:59, August 20, 2013 (UTC)`1'
The dragon is also the symbol of Wales and figures on many other flags... it also has no relevance to this day.
"fighting those French" you mean the Welsh - huge anachronism Anglofrench (talk) 17:39, August 20, 2013 (UTC)
They did fight the Welsh and French with it, and many English people use it culturally to this day. --CrabKakeZ MD027 15:56, August 21, 2013 (UTC)12
Source? Anglofrench (talk) 16:32, August 21, 2013 (UTC)
The quote "...it was beneath the White Dragon that Harold, the last English king, fell at Hastings, under the arrows of the Normans, in 1066." comes from this book: http://archive.org/details/flamebearersofwe00rhos and the dragon can be seen in the Bayeux tapestry. Some English nationalists use it to symbolise England, too. --CrabKakeZ MD027 23:17, August 21, 2013 (UTC)2
The Normans weren't French ~ they only spoke French ;-) Anglofrench (talk) 06:13, August 22, 2013 (UTC)
Either way. And, they were from France, and the French faught, too (it even says so in the Bayeux Tapestry.) --CrabKakeZ MD027 21:01, August 25, 2013 (UTC)`

I think that the white dragon is a bit dated, and a bit more mythological than ligustic related, and also related to certain groups of people we might rather not be associated with. I'm new here if you haven't guessed. I like the idea of High English, and I think the St Georges cross should be incorporated into a flag representing that disposition.

Support for the creation of an Anglish ForumEdit

(Further to the post below, "An Anglish Forum on Yahoo! / Google Groups?" and in consultation with several members).

Dear Mooters! Please sign the below if you are interested in the creation of an Anglish discussion forum. (Currently, there doesn't seem to be one available for the project). Please indicate:

1) what platform you would prefer to use, e.g. a Google Group or a Yahoo! Group, etc.

2) if you are willing to help administrate any group created.

We decide by majority vote. Cavallero 01:19, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE Just to make sure people get chance to vote, I'll close voting on Tues 1 November if that's alright with everyone. Cavallero 13:56, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE SIGN HERE:

  • Google Group (in conjunction with a Facebook Group) : willing to help administrate : Cavallero 01:19, October 28, 2011 (UTC)
  • I can do either a Google Group or a Yahoo Group. I'm a little more wonted to Yahoo but either is ok. A Facebook group would be good too. There is an Anglish page on FB but a Group would be better. I don't mind helping a reever ... I don't have time to be the only one tho. -EinWulf ... Wes þu hal! 03:15, October 28, 2011 (UTC)
  • Either are alright with me, I have no preference. I also don't mind helping to administrate, as you need. Anglom 04:35, October 28, 2011 (UTC)
  • Like Anglom, either are alright with me, and assuming I can figure out how it works, I would be willing to help administrate as needed. Since I'm behind in the times, I'd also like a Facebook group. Gr8asb8 13:59, October 28, 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't have a preference, either are ok for me. Maybe I could help to administrate but I have no experience with that. WinterWind 16:46, October 28, 2011 (UTC) WinterWind
  • I would like a Yahoo Group or Facebook group, but I am not willing to administrate. Sabbath Stone 14:09, October 28, 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't have a preference for either kind of group. As of yet I am not ready to administrate, but I will consider doing it in the tocomth. ; ) Speechlarer 04:29, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Dear all, Polling has closed! Here's the url to the new Anglish Moot forum: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/anglish/ There was a slight preference for a Yahoo! Group amongst you. Please come join the group. Cavallero 21:05, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

An Anglish Forum on Yahoo! / Google Groups?Edit

Hello Anglish Mooters! Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this. I was looking to contact the wiki owner or make a question on the group forum, but I couldn't find any contact info. Does anyone know of there is an Anglish Yahoo! / Google Group? I thought it would be interesting to have a group of discussion about retracing the Germanic elements of English. If a Yahoo! / Google Group doesn't exist, would anyone here be interested in creating one? Cavallero 22:38, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who owns the Anglish Wiki. The talk and forums on the wiki are burdensome and a yahoo or google group is needed. I can only put forth that you start a group and post a link to it. I can help spread the word but expect it to be slow going. EinWulf
Forgive my underbreaking, but I hold with you. This was also my thinking when I started an (IRC) fairway(channel). Although I have had no luck in faring to get anybody to link(join) up. A Yahoo or Google group is likely more to everyone's liking, in the end. Anglom 06:05, October 27, 2011 (UTC)
I have found that Anglish Moot's founder. It is User:Oswax_Scolere. Unfortunately, it seems he hasn't contributed to the group since February 2008. I have left a message on his Talk Leaf, just in case.
As for creating a group, I have given the net another search for Anglish groups, but any mentions of Anglish are only one-off posts - nothing specific for the Anglish project.
I propose that Anglish Moot's most prominent and active users be contacted for their opinion on creating a group of discussion. 1) We need to know if there is general interest from the majority of contributors for a group. 2) Will members join? 3) And we need to know what kind of platform they would prefer (Google, Yahoo) or if another, perhaps more popular means, would be preferable such as Facebook.
(Also note: though I'm interested in the Anglish project, as an amateur linguist, I do not know the ins and outs of it. I can create and help administrate a group, but someone (or several people) with better knowledge and gusto for the project will need to administrate it with me.) Cavallero 15:29, October 27, 2011 (UTC)
I think this is a great step forward. I have been bugged for some time that the Anglish moot is more of an edspring (resource) than a moot. I wholeheartedly hold with you, Cavallero, that we should talk about Theedish roots, aso. I'd also like to talk about 3rd level meanings (sense of a word, over-against 2nd level meaning, which is the wordbook definition), maybe even coming to consensus over meet (fitting, proper) and unmeet brooking (usage) of words. Gr8asb8 13:59, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

Old English WordbookEdit

Hi there, I just short-ago made the Old-English wordbook for edstatholing (restoring) Old English words. I know this is sometimes done on the Anglish Word book and the English wordbook, but the Old English word book is outshutly (exclusivley) set aside for relifening Old English words. It's something I thought this site was missing. Check it out and tell me what you think. :). tocomingotheredoneness 11:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wordbook FormattingEdit

Hey guys, I made a template for wordbook rows as can be seen in English_Wordbook/D . It should prevent misformatting (sometimes the character "-" written without space where it should be and with space where it shouldn't be.

I think the template is pretty intuitive:

{{inway
|english = defend
|kind = vb
|attested = shield
|unattested = beweir <br/>(justify) foranswer (Calque of NHG verantworten)
}}

Attested and unattested parameter is optional, so you can enter

{{inway
|english = defend
|kind = vb
|attested = shield
}}

or

{{inway
|english = defend
|kind = vb
|unattested = beweir <br/>(justify) foranswer (Calque of NHG verantworten)
}}

Now, I'm finding out how to tell the template engine to replace a character so user can use semicolon instead of the verbose br-tag

What do you think? --Pyurio 07:34, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

That looks great! I'm working on a chrome extension to translate a page into Anglish, and this would help massivly.

Edit

I've made and uploaded a logo for the Moot, as I thought it looked poor that we didn't have one of our own. I'm obviously not a whizz on the design side of things, but I did the best I could. Input and thoughts would be greatly appreciated, even if it is just to say that it looks okay. If there is anybody who can design something much more professional looking, that would be fantastic. Oswax 18:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Anglish Moot:About and What is Anglish?Edit

I've started writing these pages as an introduction to people who drop by here. The What is Anglish? page is now basically finished, so if somebody can take a look at it and give some feedback or make relevant changes, that would be useful. Two minds are always better than one.

The Anglish Moot:About leaf has been partly done, though at the moment it needs a bit more under each of the headings. Do people think the split into three areas given on that page is a good idea? I think it is a good way to describe and outline the intentions for the Moot (though I can well believe there is better). It would be good to have input as this is really important for the direction the Moot will take in the future. Oswax 20:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Anglish wordbookEdit

I have put in this section today, in order to being collecting Anglish words together in their own right. It should be really useful, as it struck me as something really lacking here. However, I have tried to do it rather smartly, which I think could give a really good outcome, but also could be hard to use. Feedback, as always, appreciated. Oswax 02:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Anglish namesEdit

I think we ought to put to work the names of tungs and folks that truly are Anglish {C}(that is, come from Old English (OE) names or roots). As such, we would have {C}Old Northish rather than Old Nordish, from Northway rather than Norway {C}(OE Norðweg, spoken out "northway", wordly "way of the North"), {C}(New) Thedish (the spelling in the OED is "Theidish". on that ground it is better) rather than Teutonish (OE þeodisc, spoken out "thayodish", {C}wordly "tung of the folks"), and so on. Also, the New Thedish wordbeginning ur- should {C}be thrown out of the Anglish tung with the OE wordbeginning or- in its stead {C}(as OE ordal "ordeal"), so we should have or-thedish for English "Proto-Germanic". {C}This is akin to the asking of whether we must throw out, as un-Anglish, words from {C}other Thedish tungs, such as wagon (from Netherlandish) rather than wain (from OE).

Anglish is the anglicized spelling of "Anglysch" (the name for English in Zeaxysch). the native name for the national language of England or Inglelond is "English" or "Inglish", not "Anglish". the name for what referrred to as "English", i.e., "international English", "Global English", "World English", "Modern English" should be "AngloUS" or "Anglonic". what is referred to as "Anglish" is "New-English", or "Inglish", drawing on the native roots of English for its vocabulary.

-Nightvid

I'm up for naming kiths anew; i called Japanese "Dawnlandish" a short time ago here, although i don't know if that's what you have in mind. --Schreiter 05:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The Old English word þēodisc is spoken as theohw-dish, with two deals, not three, as is Bēoƿulf. And, greetings :) Wōdenhelm 12:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Felelight (perhaps) we could also call Anglish "High English," or more Germanically as one word: Highenglish (Cf. Hochdeutsch, Høgnorsk, Háíslenska) --Faxfleet 18:52, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
---
Actually Beowulf is spoken as two syllables not three.
OE g = nowadays y when it comes before e.
eo = oo or u or ou (as in you)
Thus, geol = yul(e); geong = yeong = young (now maybe yung?) ... BTW, knowing this then it becomes clear that yeoman is the drawing together of yeong+man (now spoken as yo-man). - EinWolf 08 Aug 2011
---

YolaEdit

I think it would be interesting if Anglish borrowed some Yola words, as I plan to borrow Anglish words for the Yola Wiki [1]. Yola has a largely Anglo-Saxon vocabulary (some Romance words were borrowed from English and French). This Wiki inspired me to start one in the Yola language, it is quite interesting :). Aekos 02:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)



INSTEADERS TO THE WORD 'OVERLIVE' FOR THE WORD 'SURVIVE'

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I would rad against steadsetting the word 'survive' with 'overlive', because 'overlive' already has the meaning of 'to live too much', just as the words 'oversleep', 'overdo', 'overeat', mean, eachownly (respectively), 'to sleep too much', 'to do too much', and 'to eat too much. We must be careful not to sacrifice the clarity and richness of english for 'anglishness'. Using overlive to mean survive would fordo its other meaning (to live too much), or at least create a twomeaningness (ambiguity). As an insteader, may I suggest a seperable prefex verb-'to live out through', e.g. few lived the disaster out through', which, I muist give to, is on the brink of ungrammaticalness, but frankly, nothing else seems to lend itself to the meaning of 'survive.' Take 'to live out' for example-- at first glance it migth seem to work, but it too already has a menaing--' to participate in or live' e.g. 'I lived out the life of a thief for one week.' Any suggestions?


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gallitrot: I hereby put forward the already living word-blends ' live beyond' / 'outlast' / 'outlive' to shove aside 'survive' ; this would help stop any befuddling that could be shaped through the word 'over', as shown above.

As in: He lived beyond the fight, though, it should have cost him his life/ He outlasted his other siblings/ He outlived everyone else

NB: Lo, another thing, some folk on here are seemingly wanting to be sharp and witty by making new words up (e.g outshut) yet, we already have the sundered-doing-word (separable verb) 'shut out'. I beseech folk not to shift English word-building, which stands much the same as it was before the Norman Overthrowal, only so as to be seen as clever. English was already rather unlike Theodish (German), in the way it built wordthreads(sentences), by the end of the 900's.

Innernet Backleave/Backup? Chat(IRC) Fairway(Channel)?Edit

What would you fellows think of an (IRC channel), that could bestead(serve) many sakes(purposes)? Foremost of all, it could give us better kilter(order, organization) and working together(cooperation), as well as allow a greater spread of talking over(discussion). It could also give us a better feeling of borough-weren(community) and a stead(place) to work out(exercise) our Anglish speaking/writing skills.

(If someone with experience would like to do/start one, that would be great. If not, though I'm not very experienced myself, I could do so.) Let me know what you fellows think! Anglom 13:18, September 27, 2011 (UTC)

Bework: Forgot to underwrite.

It's been a while, so I went ahead and made an Anglish fairway. As I said before, I'm pretty new at running things, so bear with me. (Channel is #Anglish, without the comma, server is irc.irchighway.net, link on my profile). If you have worries, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Anglom 02:28, October 15, 2011 (UTC)

Bework: Righted the "server" name. Anglom 21:10, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

Many folk from the wikia moot use the freenode stead. Something like #wikia-anglish maybe? The first sentence was my horrible attempt at using Anglish. 76.14.177.248 07:05, October 22, 2011 (UTC)
Alright. I guess I just needed to lurk more, then. Thank you muchly for your help. Anglom 13:00, October 22, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think I got it now, mostly. I "updated" the link in my "profile", it does not seem to work with "mibbit" though, so there's a twoth link for a web-"based" chat that should work. Anglom 13:02, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, should probably add that the IRC idea has kind of died, I'm no longer maintaining the channels. Anglom 00:14, November 28, 2011 (UTC) 00:13, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Praise and a question on lettersEdit

Hello, I stumbled across this site via Wikipedia by pure accident and I am very pleased to have done so: it is really interesting —I wish instead of knowing Latin and Greek, I knew Old English and German! I was thinking it would be quite nice if, like the Old English wikipedia, on request the reader could switch the letter g to yogh (ȝ), w to wynn (ƿ) and the th group to thorn (þ, even if voiced, I suppose, instead of edh ð): after all if the English had won in 1066, we would probably be reading a descendant of insular script, such as Gaelic script —after all, if Hitler had not banned Fraktur, Germans would still be writing in a blackletter-descendent script. --122.62.144.13 06:06, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Having spent some more time reading this site and people's comments on blogs etc., I have changed my opinion stated in my above post: Using lost letterforms would just make it more complicated and detract from this linguistic experiment, regardless of their charming un-latin-ness.
However, I would like to make one or two different comments —I am sorry for just dropping in and giving my opinions, but I find this rather fascinating (unfortunately I cannot help as I am a scientist (lifelorer) with an interest in linguistics so not a linguist).
Firstly, I find the site lacking transparency (or 'metadata') in some pages: I find there is too little indication why the words were chosen and what the options entail and what is the equivalent in German and Icelandic. For example, I think that in the periodic table page it ought to be said that Germans do not have all the elements translated, but only H, C, N, O and some others (Mg, Au etc.): in more general terms a indication of when an translation goes beyond German language purity.
Secondly, I think it would be good if there was a series of essays (akin to wikipedia) discussing the pros and cons of Anglish, similar to the prefaces of the books listed, and also addressing the few valid points raised by naysaying bloggers (who misunderstand constrained writing by saying that all bien pensant people would find this ersatz language not in the zeitgeist of English as the global lingua franca) and summarising any useful behind the scene discussions about Anglish.
Thirdly, it would be interesting to see how a paragraph would look like without words of OE origin (bar auxilary verbs etc) and with only words of Latin/Greek origin, namely the reverse of Anglish (Langlish or Languish?)
Also —final point, I promise—, the most ironic words in English must be 'anglophone', 'anglophile' and 'anglosphere': could anglodom (or angledom) be a better single word for anglosphere? (user:Squidonius in wikipedia)--130.123.96.22 06:55, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
I have signed-up on wikia (see signature), so I can actively (snelly?) help out —not as a contributor obviously, but as a proofreader. --Squidonius 04:24, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

New Bureaucrat/Admin WantedEdit

Hello, I've recently come back to looking at this wiki, but I do not mean to become actively involved any longer. However, I also realize that it's not good to be left without somebody who can do all the administrative duties. I think the only other person with bureaucrat status (where you can change anything) was BAJParry, and he's gone.

So two things:

1) If you're aware of anybody with admin or bureaucrat status, please let me know, as I do not wish to promote anybody above them.
2) If you would like that status, or think somebody else should have it, comment below. I'm not just going to promote anybody, but rather choose somebody who has a history of editing. If they have the support of another, than would be good too.

Let me know! Oswax 18:42, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

Tung?Edit

The odd spelling of tung apart, I think the word for language should be speech. It seems quite clear that the metaphorical use of the vocal muscle, the tungue, to signify a set of coherent utterances is of Latin origin, where the two are the same: lingua. In Old English Ælfric and other monks did sometimes used the word tunge, but they were Latin scholars and they used the word sprǣc a long more frequently. Does anyone agree? --122.62.144.13 11:04, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

I think tung/tongue should be used to refer to a specific language, while speech should be used to refer to "spoken language", "speech in a general sense" For example it sounds less natural to say * "The Middle Low German speech was the 'lingua franca of the Hanseatic League." than it does to say "The Middle Low German tongue was the 'lingua franca' of the Hanseatic League"

Such a semantic division already exists in English (where tongue is still used to refer "language"). When one speaks of languages in the plural, one is more likely to use tongues than speeches. E.g "Many tongues were spoken within the Roman Empire". But not *"Many speeches were spoken within the Roman Empire", and not because of the redundancy of speeches and spoken, but because speech used in the plural, for manifold languages, sounds less natural than tongue does in the plural.

This semantic division is mirrored somewhat by the use of taal , "Language", "a specific language" vs. spraak , "speech" in Dutch, Afrikaans, and Frisian. (Going back to the example above, Dutch would say "De Middelnederduitse taal was de "lingua franca" van de Hanze", but not *"De Middelnederduitse spraak was de "lingua franca" van de Hanze".

I propose using tung (in addition to it's established meaning as "a specific language") as the general word for languages, both spoken and unspoken (such as sign language, programming language asf.) while speech will continue to mean "spoken language in general," "speech".

As for tongue having acquired its meaning from Latin, I really don't think that matters much. It's long established in the sense of "a specific language", and having two words to refer to "speech" on the one hand and "Language in general" on the other, is too handy to get rid of owing to possible Latin influence.

Speechlarer, 15:30:27, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason why both 'speech' and 'tongue' can't be used, depending on the context or individual like. However, English isn't the only language within Germanic to use its word for tongue to mean 'language', and the same pattern is also seen in Slavic and maybe other language families. It's not a great concern where it came from in English, as it's something that could have ended up that way anyway. Oswax 20:31, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

The ‘a-’ Prefix as the Progressive MarkerEdit

I propose that we revive the ‘a-’ prefix as the progressive (forthgoingsome) marker and use it so as to avoid ambiguity between the progressive and the gerund. The prefix would be used when:

1. The progressive is used

Example: I'm a-walking to the store.

2. The progressive adjective is used.

Example: The boy a-walking to the store is a friend of mine.

The prefix would NOT be used when:

1. The gerund is used.

Example: Walking to the store takes a long time.

2. The progressive adjective and a noun are used together as an adjective.

Example: The owner of the store is a tobacco-chewing hick.

If anyone knows what was used as the progressive marker before words that began with a vowel in days of old, post the marker here. If someone does so, I propose we use it as it was used back then. If no one posts the marker here, I propose we use ‘ag-’ as the progressive marker before words that begin with a vowel. Some examples:

1. I'm ag-eating some corn.

2. The boy ag-eating the corn is a friend of mine.

Esszet 20:00, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why any of this is needed. Oswax 11:26, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
The prefix would be used to avoid ambiguity between the progressive and the gerund. Thus,
Becoming a father is becoming a guardian, a mentor, a role model…
is distinct from
Being a father to kids these days is a-becoming extremely difficultt.
The prefix would be used with the progressive adjtive for the sake of consistency. Esszet 01:58, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
To avoid what confusion, though?
That being a father to kids these days is the process of becoming extremely difficult.
Well? Esszet 23:02, June 10, 2012 (UTC)
Two things: 1) I've never heard anybody moan about how confusing this is, and indeed I think that most folk don't even know the difference in the first place, and 2) the goal of Anglish isn't to re-engineer the whole language, but only to remove more recent influence form French, Latin and Greek. Oswax (talk) 17:56, August 4, 2012 (UTC)
I fully agree that it is beyond the scope of Anglish (but so is the usage of the letters thron, edh and ae ligature), so best not adopt it —however, nobody is stopping from writing a short essay about it to explore it, just remember to add the word "Drawth" nested in two pairs of curly brakets at the top. Yes, in English present participles and gerunds do get muddled: there has been a fair amount of discussion about the half-gerund vs. gerund with possessive pronoun ("me eating at my desk annoys Bob" and "my eating ..."), the latter being the more formal and traditional form. Romance languages do not allow pronouns in front of infinitives (equivalent of English gerund) full stop.
The lost of the progressive marker ge- in OE and a- in ME is definetely interesting as it is present in German, but what I find more interesting is that the gerund (or verbal noun) and present particle were different: the former was in -ung or -ing (strong or weak verbs respectively) and the latter was in -(i)ende. The above could be "Becoming a father is becomend a guardian". 139.80.3.29 22:09, October 18, 2012 (UTC) (Squidonius)
PS. I just realised I had made a big mistake before: ge- is a perfect marker. I am not sure how I got so badly confused, but I think it is because I was unaware of a progressive marker in Old/Middle/Modern English. The Oxford English Dictionary has two OE-wellsprung entries for a- prefix: one is the variant of y- from ge- (the perfect marker) and the other is an intesifier for motion verbs, a variant of or-. So I am not too sure a progressive marker ever did exist in English. I do not mean to be critical by the above and the topic interested me to the point I materialised (unghasted?) out of my self-imposed retirement as an adighter of Anglish.Squidonius (talk) 23:11, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

10 Thoughts on AnglishEdit

I have been a lurker for a long time. I usually don't sign up for forums or wikis, but for this I made an exception because I wanted to be heard.

Right now, Anglish is a fringe movement. There are very few people who are in this movement. On top of that, there are those who would consider what we do as xenophobic. These preconceptions limit our ability to grow. Therefore we must change what Anglish is perceived as.

This can be relatively easy to do. These changes are pretty minor and will allow Anglish to get the mainstream acceptance that we want.

First off, we must completely condemn racism and ensure that it does not ensnare our movement. Anyone who exhibits any sort of racist inclinations must be immediately denounced by our movement. Racism puts off a lot of normal people, including most of us in this movement. Granted, there are racists everywhere, but if they become the face of our movement we will never have any sort of success.

Secondly, we must admit defeat. Anglish is not going to replace English. We should be focusing on replacing words that are two syllables or more. If we chase after one syllable words then we are wasting our time. Words like "air" and "use" are here to stay. However, instead of fighting to change those one syllable words, we should embrace them. This will help us on our movement because it is seen as sensible to the common person. We could do one thing: focus on adding two-syllable words for stylish reasons. For example: "That white car was by the thieves benoted (used)." This has a more poetic feel to it, and this can be more acceptable to the masses. Along with this we should keep a few Latin appendices and suffixes as this will also look reasonable to the mean folk.

Thirdly, no grammar changes at all. Do not attempt to change the word order to V2. Do not attempt to bring back conjugations. Celtic style shall be obeyed. For example, "I do not know" should not be subverted by "I know not". This could be focused on later on when and if this movement gains traction. But right now, lets stick to the vocabulary. As with the above sentence example, that is still recognized in English because of the Bible. The Bible is a good tool to use as a blueprint of what our options are in grammar.

Fourthly, Thou is gone. Ye is gone. Ge- or y- is gone. We should not focus on bringing these back as English has always simplified in its evolution. "Shall" may have a chance as it is still used rightly in British English, but American English, the largest of English dialects, does not use it that much. When someone in America uses the word "Shall", they are ataken as pompous. This needs to be addressed and "shall" should be normalized in America.

Fifth, people like to sound sophisticated in their verbiage. Therefore, we should convince them of the exotic nature of Anglo-Saxon words. It is true that the mindset of the masses is that French and Latin words are more grander than Saxon words. This may be difficult to combat.

Sixth, if there is already a native English word out there, use the English word. Don't borrow from Old English what we don't need. If it is not broken do not fix it. I have seen this in many articles on the Anglish Moot wiki of unnecessary borrowings.

Seventh, keep it simple, stupid. "Earthfrod"? "Telcraft"? No one who speaks English has any sort of idea what they could be. Those kinds of words put off people, especially when they are flooded with them. The Wiki front page is scary for those who have no introduction to Anglish. Why not "Earthteacher" or "Tallying"? "Starcraft" is a video game, and, according to Wiktionary, already a word for astrology; but "Starwatcher" does not have those burdens. I know this conflicts with point number five, but I believe that a delicate balance betwixt them is possible.

Eight, place names are not to be changed. If there is one thing that is constant about languages it is that place names can be kept by invaders who displace local populations. We see this extensively in the United States where the majority of our states are named after the native-Americans we kicked out or the former Mexican states that we took. Very few states have English names. 26 states total are of Native American name descent, followed by Spanish at 8. In England, this also exists, but not to the great extent as it does in America. Thames is a famous example of this. Everyone knows what the Thames is. Hell, there are even a couple of Americans who know that you don't pronounce the "th" as normal.

Ninth, titles of official Government or corporate persons are to be respected. We could possibly get away with changing "Mister" to something else, but anything else is pushing it. The President will always be The President.

Tenth, English names of English origin are to be pushed as popular baby names. If you change the names they could be more willing to change more of the language. We don't need to bring back Aethelfriths or Athelwulfs; Edward, Alfred, and Harold are more than acceptable. We could look to Middle English for inspiration of fancy native English names.

Bonus point: transwanderings from German or Dutch should be encouraged due to them having Geehove (German "gehoben", sophisticated. The "g" is hard as in "egg") sounds. Great care should be taken to avoid possible uncomfortable situations of linguistic confusion. When the Normans conquerer England, Count never got off the ground as a title because of its phonetic similarity to woman sexual organs. That is why I used "Gee" instead of "Gay". Using "Gay" will make it seem like a joke to many and could be considered offensive.

Ameris cyning (talk)


Interesting proposals, though I would like to come back on a few points made:

second: Why employ a german style of phrase (verb at end of the sentence when in a proposition)? I think we should add prefixes to words only when required or in poetical contexts; if not, no need to add them to original verbs;  neet alone suffices (not 'note' by the way).

seven: Earthfrod is a simple calque from Icelandic. Both words are made up of original words: frod = wis,e tel = number; why want to replace them with more redundant words like 'earthlore' and 'reckonlore' or 'earthteacher' and 'tallying'. As for Starcraft, to which meaning would you assign the meaning by default: a century old discipline or a 20th century video game? 'Starwatcher'? To sum up, I believe that many of the words on the front page or a good balance of the two clauses that you elicited.

eight: The main difference is that America was a stolen land; England was not: no-one can consider the Romans as the native folk in Britain; in that sense, place names in England could be replaced. The Thames etymology could also have an Anglo-Frisian origin in that the river might share its name with three other rivers at close range across the North Sea in what are now Holland and Friesland: the Amstel, the Eem and Eems, all sharing physical features with the river Thames. http://www.proto-english.org/l10.html

ninth: 'Foresitter' is a possible alternative, although there might be other possibilities.

count: Interesting! I did not no of, until now ;-)

Anglofrench (talk) 11:55, March 2, 2013 (UTC)

Word entries Edit

Since the table format used in our Wordbooks is getting more and more cumbersome, I feel we should adopt a new and better system for listing proposed word replacements. Why not make a separate whole page for each English word presenting "pure" equivalent(s) for just that word? If we adopted such a Wiktionary-esque approach, you could eventually just search for words in the main search box and go right to a concise, dedicated page, and we'd no longer have to deal with tabular monstrosities haha. I'd really like to hear your thoughts on this idea! —Faxfleet (talk) 04:02, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the wordbooks are a nightmare to edit, particularly since some genius decided to reformat several entries so that they each take up about half a screen's worth of space. A Wiktionary-type format might work well, but I think there would need to be some way of distinguishing entries in the three different wordbooks from each other, as well as from the encyclopaedic, Wikipedia-style entries. Maybe we could used different combinations of text and background colours, so that users know instantly whether the page is for the Anglish, English-to-Anglish or Old English wordbook. --Nick xylas (talk) 11:37, March 27, 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts Edit

Attention people of the Anglish Moot! I would like to discuss a few things…
First, we need to bring inflection back! I know it won’t catch on, but we could at least use it for now. I’ll make a page with all the declensions on it.
Nextly, I think word order should reflect other Germanic languages. Also, I don’t think we should say thinks like “Do you like (such and such)?” We should say “Like(st) thou (such and such)?”
Thirdly, we should bring back things like “thou” and “ye”. Also, the pronoun I should be spelled “igh” to reflect the Old English ancestor.
We shouldn’t try to take existing words and slap them together to make new words. “Page” should not be “leafside”, but “trammet” is perfect. (Okay, “side” is okay, but really, for a page in a book, not a page on a website. “Side” could also be good for “site” as in “website”.)
Also, I think þ, ð, ƿ, ȝ, and perhaps even æ, ŋ, ſ, and the Tironian “and” sign should come back.
I can’t think of anything else at the moment. Below, I will leave a sample, when I make it.

I utterly agree ðt little words like -est and -eþ, ðe words ðou, ðee, ye, whiðer, hiðer ðiðer, whens, ðens, and hens, and ðose letters like Þ and ð, shall richen our Angelcin tung and writing. Cosimmaniare (talk) 14:12, January 16, 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone want to attempt Magna Carta? Edit

Yes I know original Magna Carta is Latin, but it would be interesting to hear it Anglish ;) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:25, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

technical discussionEdit

I'm creating The Anglish Moot:Technical since I don't know enough about the subject to help with content beyond minor proofreading. Feel free to move it to one with an Anglish name. ☺ ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:00, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.