![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 March 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Right. When are we going to start an Anglish wikipedia? Doops | talk 06:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
There is a wiki about Anglish, Anglish Moot. -- Soumyabrata ( talk • subpages) 14:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
inn't the word "rage" of latin root?
from Late Latin *ultragium or *ultraticum -- LupusInFabula ( talk) 11:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Should waterstuff be separated from uncleft? German wasserstoff and sauerstoff are themselves calques of the Greek. — Tamfang ( talk) 03:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
No, hydrogen means "water-former" while wasserstoff/waterstof is "water-substance" or "water-stuff" so I don't think it is quite a calque. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.72.129 ( talk) 15:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Anyone else care to pitch-in? ~Asarlaí 16:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I askt for input over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages but none has been forthcoming. So, as most of us here support a renaming, I went ahed and moved the article to "Linguistic purism in English". ~Asarlaí 14:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Duke, count and sir are not Germanic in origin. Barefoot through the chollas ( talk) 20:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 March 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Right. When are we going to start an Anglish wikipedia? Doops | talk 06:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
There is a wiki about Anglish, Anglish Moot. -- Soumyabrata ( talk • subpages) 14:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
inn't the word "rage" of latin root?
from Late Latin *ultragium or *ultraticum -- LupusInFabula ( talk) 11:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Should waterstuff be separated from uncleft? German wasserstoff and sauerstoff are themselves calques of the Greek. — Tamfang ( talk) 03:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
No, hydrogen means "water-former" while wasserstoff/waterstof is "water-substance" or "water-stuff" so I don't think it is quite a calque. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.72.129 ( talk) 15:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Anyone else care to pitch-in? ~Asarlaí 16:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I askt for input over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages but none has been forthcoming. So, as most of us here support a renaming, I went ahed and moved the article to "Linguistic purism in English". ~Asarlaí 14:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Duke, count and sir are not Germanic in origin. Barefoot through the chollas ( talk) 20:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
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)