This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the
English language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language articles
Currently the article states: "Additionally, mind is of Anglo-Saxon origin, so had no need of changing." In context, it implies (to me) that Jennings chose not to use "mind" by his constraints. I would suppose he realized "mind" would be fine to use and realized "brain" fit more poetically. Is it possible to edit the given statement, removing the implication, or should the note simply be removed?
Most of the words on that list are not resurrected at all, but are current, abeit sometimes old-fashioned words. This table needs to be split in two. One for resurrected words(from OE), and one for modern Germanic alternatives to modern Latinate words. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
194.80.134.205 (
talk)
08:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I would say alehouse, allieve, brewhouse, canny, gainweigh, noteful, stead, sundry, wend, widdershins and winsome are still in use with the meanings listed here, although maybe it is a regional thing (canny, for example, is particularly used in Scotland). Downcast and fend are still in use but with a slightly different meaning. I'm not sure how the article should be changed, did whoever developed Anglish come up with this list, not realising some of these words were still in use? If so, it might be better to note the fact rather than delete the words.
Kaid100 (
talk)
22:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Should this list be kept at all? It's getting larger and larger and Wikipedia isn't the right place for a dictionary or an extensive wordlist... so what is to be done with it? Should(n't) it get deleted? —
N-true (
talk)
11:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)reply
I see no problem with it being there, but it might need to be trimmed. However, if there's broad agreement to cut it down, I suggest the words with Wiktionary entries be kept (at least).
~Asarlaí12:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Added 'longfather' Hi, I'm all new and draften onto wiki. Don't know which wordfield (section) my 'longfather' adding belongs. I'm html unskilled so lots of sorriness for any staffsetting untidiness. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Qwaggmireland (
talk •
contribs)
03:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)reply
This whole article looks like OR, to be honest. Where is the term "Anglish" used outside of Wikipedia, besides a few internet groups? References, please.
Hayden120 (
talk)
07:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)reply
If you're looking for sources, The
Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language by
David Crystal does go into Anglo-Saxon linguistic purism a bit. Apparently it was a notable characteristic of the English Romantic movement in the 19th Century. People like
Dickens,
Thomas Hardy, and of course
Orwell were all involved, but apparently the most avid "saxonmaniac" was
William Barnes, who tried to change the lexicon with Anglo-Saxon roots, so birdlore for ornithology, speechcraft for grammar, etc. (I don't know what he would've said for etc.!)
Sheavsey33 (
talk)
03:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)reply
this is exactly the kind of information this article should be based upon. Currently, it is essentially a branch off a non-notable
Wikia page. I will do a deep revert of all the OR addition, and move it to a more descriptive title. --
dab(𒁳)12:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Shouldn't this page be named English linguistic purism rather than Anglo-Saxon linguistic purism? The latter implies that the article is about linguistic purism during Anglo-Saxon (Old English) times. Thoughts?
~Asarlaí20:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I don't think the two cases are truly parallel -- Icelandic purism is a very active and significant force which has played a role in molding the Icelandic language for at least a century (that's why it's factually "in Icelandic"), while the analogous English purism has mainly been either armchair grumbling by curmudgeonly language pundits, or grandiose but purely theoretical conlang schemes -- neither of which has exerted much influence in the language. There's little purism "in" English as it is actually used...
AnonMoos (
talk)
14:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)reply
It don't think it matters how activ the (modern) movement is; Linguistic purism in English is still a much better description of the article's subject than Anglo-Saxon linguistic purism. The latter implies that it's about linguistic purism during Anglo-Saxon (Old English) times, yet the purism movement didn't start until the Middle English period. I should also note that meny of the nativ words we use today didn't emerge until the Middle English period.
~Asarlaí17:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I really cast a vote for leaving the article title just as it is. The correct modern term for the early English language as spoken ca. 600-1100 A.D. is
Old English (not "Anglo-Saxon"), so the possibility for confusion with the current title isn't as great as you think it is -- while your alternative titles would allow for new and greater confusions...
AnonMoos (
talk)
18:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I agree with Asarlaí, "Anglo-Saxon linguistic purism" sounds like a historic linguistic movement during Old English times. (By the way, Anglo-Saxon "is" a synonym for Old English.) We don't call "Dutch linguistic purism" something like "Frankish linguistic purism", or Icelandic purism "Old Norse linguistic purism". This article clearly deals with modern people that want to restore the Germanic wordstock in modern English and is as such not different from modern linguistic purism in other modern languages. As a sidenote, in many languages linguistic purism fails to gain widespread support or influence.
Morgengave (
talk)
19:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)reply
This page deals with purifying Modern English. Anglo-Saxon is a popular term and has caught the imagination of people because of its tribal or ethnic connotations. As such, when talking of the topic of English in its early years, linguists will predominantly use Old English rather than Anglo-Saxon. What is more, 'Anglo-Saxon' is considered to disenfranchize other language or dialect groups among the nascent English kingdoms of England). However, considering that we are talking of not Old English but of the modern tongue, then, this page clearly needs to state that in its title. --CavallèroTalk12:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)reply
What other West Germanic speaking "language or dialect groups" were there in early medieval England, besides Angles, Saxon, and Jutes? Sorry if you object to the Jutes being slighted, but they've been slighted for many centuries...
AnonMoos (
talk)
00:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Am I in error? I had believed this is Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, not a site for whimsy and fancy. The academic and factual position is the only one that needs to be taken into consideration. The term 'Anglo-Saxon' is neither accurate or correct and is thus misleading. If this page deals with decontaminating the modern language, then, it should be clearly stated, as
User:Asarlaí, suggests; 'linguistic purism in English'. CavallèroTalk14:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Whatever -- linguistic purism is really not IN English in the same way that it's "in" Icelandic, since in the case of Icelandic it's a mostly successfully-implemented official semi-governmental policy, while in the case of English it consists of grumbling from armchair pundits and unrealistic theoretical conlang schemes without any real influence "in" English. Furthermore, the term "Anglo-Saxon" is used in contemporary contexts in the term
White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, the French-influenced way of referring to the inhabitants of the
Anglosphere, etc. And linguists refer to the ancient language as
Old English far more than "Anglo-Saxon"...
AnonMoos (
talk)
18:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)reply
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Linguistic purism in English. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
DEAR ALL, my link -- pureenglish.org -- was removed due to it being a "personal website". However, the link that remains, to an archive of the First English stead, is itself a personal page. Moreover, that link mentions me on the front page! This is due to my having been a long-time writer on this topic. Therefore, I have readded the link not to be spammy or annoying, but I really don't think it violates the Wikipedia guidelines and rules. Kind regards, Bryan pureenglish.org. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
77.107.74.43 (
talk)
13:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)reply
You are right about the other link, and I've just removed both as they fail
WP:ELNO. I should have removed the other one earlier. In any case, due to a conflict of interest you shouldn't be adding it yourself. See
WP:COI.
Doug Wellertalk13:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Hi Doug, I appreciate what you're saying. But because "Anglish" is so obscure, with no formal bodies, then what sources are there? Merely disparate groups of isolated cranks. It seems to me that a link to a few current websites on the topic would be beneficial to readers. Kind regards, Bryan — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
77.107.74.43 (
talk)
12:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)reply
abuse of George Orwell
What's a good word for the abuse of George Orwell?
Monosyllabic words in English are associated with a low (common) register. Polysyllabic words are associated with a fancy or high register (science, philosophy, politics). Orwell did not in the least believe that our polysyllabic classical heritage was impure. What he believed is that it was a refuge for obfuscation and dithering among those who wished to conceal their true motives. The whole of botany in the English language is classical; Orwell wasn't stomping around going "out, out, damn flower".
Orwell believed that the polysyllabic should be shunned and eschewed until a justifiable need for semantic niceties rears its ugly head (which rarely happens in common speech, though it happens in the ER all the damned day long).
Orwell was largely speaking toward the abuse of register to deaden comprehension. I don't recall him ever suggesting that the Greek or Latin legacy in the English language was in any way impure.
By claiming Orwell, this article is attempting to make this other motley crew of crackpots seem like less of a fringe movement. Citation needed that Orwell had any dog at all in the purity ring. —
MaxEnt00:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)reply
words for nobility are Germanic: king, queen, duke, count, lord, knight, sir
Sure. It's an odd little paragraph to begin with. Not explained why the list should be "kept in mind", i.e. what purpose is served, even once researched and cleaned up for accuracy. The "words for nobility" are actually a mixed bag. At the royal level, king and queen are Germanic, prince(ss) is not. Of the five titles of the peerage, only earl, not mentioned, is Germanic. Duke, marquess, viscount are Latin > Romance, count isn't used for English titles (although countess can be), baron is a bit obscure (perhaps Germanic by way of French, perhaps not). The list of items pertaining to "our (whose?) democratic governments" is accurate with regard to source, but skips over terms such as House (of Lords, of Representatives), concepts as basic as right(s). A nice bit of informed editing and explanatory text might result in something more meaningful.
Barefoot through the chollas (
talk)
16:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Citations?
There is not one citation in the entire section titled Impact of native words. Hell, the first citation doesn't even come until the last section of the article! Seriously?! --
Mocha2007 (
talk)
21:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply