Talk:Linguistic purism in English

message: inn't the word "rage" of latin root?
:Yes, from RABIDUS/RABIES I think. —IJzeren Jan  In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 06:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a false etymology, though: outrage comes from ultra+–age (compare outré), not out+rage. —Tamfang (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outrageous 

message: 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?
Yep.74.60.93.232 03:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "mind" or "brain" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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). ~Asarlaí 12:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resurrected words 

message: Should waterstuff be separated from uncleft?  German wasserstoff and sauerstoff are themselves calques of the Greek. —Tamfang (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't stoff (and stuff, originally) mean 'material (from which something is made)'? —Tamfang (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  calques 

message: This latest batch of additions looks like OR, particularly in light of the arguments made in the edit summaries. —Tamfang (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed -  will add notice accordingly. -- the Great Gavini 19:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

text: A bit of nit-picking, but "adding" is Latinate . ;)  -- the Great Gavini 19:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, eke is the word that he is looking for. --AnWulf ... Wes þu hal! (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  for "etc."?, why "furthermore" or "and-so-further" of course ;) Leasnam (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

text:  asf ... and so forth. birdlore and speechcraft both stand as words with those meanings those OE did hav grammatic: He leornode grammatican cræft. --AnWulf ... Wes þu hal! (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  uh ... 

message: I have removed some obsolete and spam links off of this page.  Please let me know if this was done in error. Throw it in the Fire (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam links 

message: 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? ~Asarlaí 20:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Serious linguistic purism involves Old English influences in some way, and "English" could be misunderstood as "of England"... AnonMoos (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Then how about Linguistic purism in English? It's accurat, carries no risk of confusion and would match Linguistic purism in Icelandic. ~Asarlaí 17:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

text: If ther ar no objections I'll move the page to Linguistic purism in English soon. ~Asarlaí 23:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. ~Asarlaí 17:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well, it's obvious this debate will go nowher unless more people pitch-in. Do you think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages would be the best place to advertize it? ~Asarlaí 18:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. --CavallèroTalk 12:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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'. CavallèroTalk 14:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: P.S. Following a current news story, randomly came across this:  -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Just driving by... half expecting to see Tolkien signposted somewhere around here...--MistyMorn (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did Tolkien ever go out of his way to avoid Latinate words? —Tamfang (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "English linguistic purism"? 

message: Linguistic purism is obvious latinism. I find a title like this inappropriate and ironic.
PS What New English for "title" and "inappropriate"?
PPS Being a member of an unofficial staff studying a version of pure Sardinian without Iberic or Italian roots, I support anglo-saxon purism.--Olbia merda (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Article titles are not a place for jokes. They should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent. --Thnidu (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title in anglosaxon rooted words 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Linguistic purism in English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131020032602/http://www.authorsonline.co.uk/book/798/How to http://www.authorsonline.co.uk/book/798/How
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 Weller talk 13:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: External links 

message: 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. — MaxEnt 00:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  abuse of George Orwell 

message: Duke, count and sir are not Germanic in origin. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  words for nobility are Germanic: king, queen, duke, count, lord, knight, sir 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations?