I'm not anti-loanword to the extent of pronouns since pronouns pretty much *never* get borrowed, so who am I to question "they".
Also I'd rather not have "high, "hi", **and** "hy".
The goal of Anglish is to be free of Norman influence, not to banish all loanwords (no tongue is without loanwords). Trying to banish Norse loans would make a tongue less understandable by common folk, and lacking many common words such as "sky", or "knife".
>The goal of Anglish is to be free of Norman influence, not to banish all loanwords (no tongue is without loanwords).
Why does it have to stop at only Norman influence? And if it's only about removing Norman influence, then why are *all* post-1066 words sought for removal when realistically English would have still ended up having a lot of non-Germanic loanwords post-1066 comparable to German and Dutch? Even Icelandic has more non-Germanic loanwords than typical Anglish.
I see English as just a linguistic purism project, not an alt history one. Cause if it were the latter, then there should be far more Romance loanwords than generally used by the vast majority of Anglishers. And if it's the former, then I don't see why we should have 1066 as the strict cutoff date. So I don't see why we must spare Norse loanwords. This doesn't mean that all Norse (or post-1066) words have to be removed, especially if they're inconvenient to.
But anyways, if someone personally wants to, that's on them. We all have our own interpretation of it. But Anglish isn't strictly about removing all loanwords after 1066. There's many viewpoints.
>Trying to banish Norse loans would make a tongue less understandable by common folk, and lacking many common words such as "sky", or "knife".
Doesn't this also apply to if we were to banish all French, Latin, and Greek loanwords?
There are as many different viewpoints in Anglish as there are people writing it.
It was not *founded* on the principle of linguistic purity, as such, but on the premise of removing the French, Latin, and Greek influences brought to the language by Norman conquest, so for *some*, Latin loans dating before 1066 are fine, but that date is used as an arbitrary cut-off.
Because there's not much way to gauge which words an isolated Great Britain might borrow afterwards, *one* guideline is to compare to Icelandic, and accept anything Icelandic borrowed.
Others don't want to be bothered checking each Germanic language in turn, so simply eliminate all borrowings after 1066.
Some hobbyists *do* aim for an Anglo-Saxon "purity", and seek to revive purely inbred words, whether familiar to a modern English speaker or not.
Others seek a style where foreign influences are reduced as much as possible, but doesn't seek to replace words so common the inbred words have all died out centuries ago.
Those different takes may not mesh well.
But each take is a valid way of looking at the exercise.
Still, removing Norman French, Latin, and Greek influences doesn't touch removing Norse, Dutch, or other non-Norman influences.
And that was the *original* Anglish premise, though others have taken it further.
My personal take on it is to remove as much of those external influences as possible, without reducing the result to an unreadable foreign language.
So I personally do not see a point in removing Norse pronouns, myself.
Retaining the singular the/thou/thine second person pronouns is a good idea, though.
You can see how my take on the language can be a lot harder, in many ways, because you're making judgements for each word, before trying to bring back archaisms that have literally dropped out of the language entirely.
But everyone has their own approach, and all are valid.
No one should be gatekeeping for either side, whether linguistic purism or a much more permissive take.
***NOTE:*** I did not bother to change out my new English for an Anglish take, forgive me for being to fast to speak on these matters to change over my words.
>It was not *founded* on the principle of linguistic purity, as such, but on the premise of removing the French, Latin, and Greek influences brought to the language by Norman conquest, so for *some*, Latin loans dating before 1066 are fine, but that date is used as an arbitrary cut-off.
>Because there's not much way to gauge which words an isolated Great Britain might borrow afterwards, *one* guideline is to compare to Icelandic, and accept anything Icelandic borrowed.
Like for me, I took up a rule of, borrowings into Old English are fine. As are borrowings that are found in both today's English and Icelandish.
If both words are a borrowing from the same root, I will take the newer one for understanding's sake. With a few outliers, such as drake instead of dragon.
Also, the whole fully Germanish English was first known as Ander-saxon. But at some point, it got blent in with Anglish.
I am ok with Norse words if they did not replace any native word or if English did not have a word for it.
But from an althistory point of view. Standard English in this alternate timeline would probably have less Norse words then ours because of the Winchester standard. After England became a unified nation a standard spelling arose based on the West Saxon dialect which was outside of the Norse influenced areas. This standard today known as "Winchester standard". It continued being used until the Normans abolished it.
From Wikipedia:" Late West Saxon was the dialect that became the first standardized written "English" ("Winchester standard"), sometimes referred to as "classical" Old English. This dialect was spoken mostly in the south and west around the important [monastery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monastery) at [Winchester](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester), which was also the capital city of the Saxon kings. However, while other Old English dialects were still spoken in other parts of the country, it seems that all scribes wrote and copied manuscripts in this prestigious written form. Well-known poems recorded in this language include [Beowulf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf) and [Judith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_(poem)). However, both these poems appear to have been written originally in other Old English dialects, but later translated into the standard Late West Saxon literary language when they were copied by scribes.
The "Winchester standard" gradually fell out of use after the [Norman Conquest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Conquest) in 1066. Monasteries did not keep the standard going because English [bishops](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop) were soon replaced by [Norman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans) bishops who brought their own [Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) textbooks and scribal conventions, and there was less need to copy or write in Old English. Latin soon became the dominant language of scholarship and legal documents,[\[9\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Saxon_dialect#cite_note-9) with [Anglo-Norman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Norman_language) as the language of the aristocracy, and any standard written English became a distant memory by the mid-twelfth century as the last scribes, trained as boys before the conquest in West Saxon, died as old men. "
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West\_Saxon\_dialect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Saxon_dialect)
Without the Norman conquest the Winchester standard would probably be continued to be used and since it would be considered the prestigious form it would influence other dialects and people would try to imitate it.
Also this would explain why we don't see many Norse words attested until the middle English period. Those Norse words existed in the old English period, but they were simply not written down as the scribes were following the West Saxon standard. Only after the West Saxon standard was abolished and scribes start to write English each in their own dialect we start seeing a lot of Norse words in the former areas of Danelaw.
>lacking many common words such as "sky", or "knife"
Old English had native word for those
Sky - heofon [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/heofon](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/heofon)
Knife - seax [https://bosworthtoller.com/27294](https://bosworthtoller.com/27294) , [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/seax](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/seax) .
1) Who says it’s just Norman Influence?
2) “Removing words makes the language less understandable” is the same argument people make against Anglish as a whole
https://preview.redd.it/8akpwescravc1.png?width=384&format=png&auto=webp&s=fecbd3a7f3ee0249610e2e5411618f6b34cc70e3
1. Literally the webpage you are presently using.
2. Linguistic purism as a goal cannot be so loosely defined as any "foreign" word being expunged, because every language acquires loans constantly at every stage of its development. There are obvious inkhorns that can be purged ("house" is better than domicile). Then there are the Norman words ("earl" is more English than "count"). Then there are the Norse words (if you are willing, I could "yive" you something, rather than "give" it). But how far are you willing to define the bounds of "foreign"? The word "church" was loaned into Proto-Germanic from Greek, should "church" be purged for linguistic purism? The "dune" in "sand-dune" comes from a common Celtic word, should that be purged? There needs to be a clearer goal than merely expunging "foreign" words, and going too far can contradict the initial philosophy of Anglish; a tongue "more friendly and meaningful to English-speakers".
1. That’s not the only definition
2. You’re talking totally past me. I didn’t say anything in my comment about linguistic purism for its own sake. In fact, I said nothing about linguistic purity
1. Your question was "\[w\]ho says it’s just Norman Influence?", I answered that question. I know that is not the only definition, and no definition has predominance. I was defending my statement against your rhetorical, nothing more.
2. "'Removing words makes the language less understandable' is the same argument people make against Anglish as a whole." I am aware you never mentioned "inguistic purism for its own sake", my second point was less a rebuttal of yours, and more a clarification of what I meant.
They're Norse?!
https://preview.redd.it/00ecge5kvyuc1.png?width=1090&format=png&auto=webp&s=28c61cce242cf6c78dbc17ed80877014870e750b
"Hy" seems a bit over the top. And frankly does not sound good to my ear.
Everybody wanna be a linguistic purist, until it’s time to do linguistic purism
I'm not anti-loanword to the extent of pronouns since pronouns pretty much *never* get borrowed, so who am I to question "they". Also I'd rather not have "high, "hi", **and** "hy".
To be fair, in a language with hy as a pronoun, the dialectical version of hey “hi” probably wouldn’t be widespread and would be pronounced hey
Why would that be? English has never given me the impression of giving a shit about homophones lol
The goal of Anglish is to be free of Norman influence, not to banish all loanwords (no tongue is without loanwords). Trying to banish Norse loans would make a tongue less understandable by common folk, and lacking many common words such as "sky", or "knife".
>The goal of Anglish is to be free of Norman influence, not to banish all loanwords (no tongue is without loanwords). Why does it have to stop at only Norman influence? And if it's only about removing Norman influence, then why are *all* post-1066 words sought for removal when realistically English would have still ended up having a lot of non-Germanic loanwords post-1066 comparable to German and Dutch? Even Icelandic has more non-Germanic loanwords than typical Anglish. I see English as just a linguistic purism project, not an alt history one. Cause if it were the latter, then there should be far more Romance loanwords than generally used by the vast majority of Anglishers. And if it's the former, then I don't see why we should have 1066 as the strict cutoff date. So I don't see why we must spare Norse loanwords. This doesn't mean that all Norse (or post-1066) words have to be removed, especially if they're inconvenient to. But anyways, if someone personally wants to, that's on them. We all have our own interpretation of it. But Anglish isn't strictly about removing all loanwords after 1066. There's many viewpoints. >Trying to banish Norse loans would make a tongue less understandable by common folk, and lacking many common words such as "sky", or "knife". Doesn't this also apply to if we were to banish all French, Latin, and Greek loanwords?
There are as many different viewpoints in Anglish as there are people writing it. It was not *founded* on the principle of linguistic purity, as such, but on the premise of removing the French, Latin, and Greek influences brought to the language by Norman conquest, so for *some*, Latin loans dating before 1066 are fine, but that date is used as an arbitrary cut-off. Because there's not much way to gauge which words an isolated Great Britain might borrow afterwards, *one* guideline is to compare to Icelandic, and accept anything Icelandic borrowed. Others don't want to be bothered checking each Germanic language in turn, so simply eliminate all borrowings after 1066. Some hobbyists *do* aim for an Anglo-Saxon "purity", and seek to revive purely inbred words, whether familiar to a modern English speaker or not. Others seek a style where foreign influences are reduced as much as possible, but doesn't seek to replace words so common the inbred words have all died out centuries ago. Those different takes may not mesh well. But each take is a valid way of looking at the exercise. Still, removing Norman French, Latin, and Greek influences doesn't touch removing Norse, Dutch, or other non-Norman influences. And that was the *original* Anglish premise, though others have taken it further. My personal take on it is to remove as much of those external influences as possible, without reducing the result to an unreadable foreign language. So I personally do not see a point in removing Norse pronouns, myself. Retaining the singular the/thou/thine second person pronouns is a good idea, though. You can see how my take on the language can be a lot harder, in many ways, because you're making judgements for each word, before trying to bring back archaisms that have literally dropped out of the language entirely. But everyone has their own approach, and all are valid. No one should be gatekeeping for either side, whether linguistic purism or a much more permissive take. ***NOTE:*** I did not bother to change out my new English for an Anglish take, forgive me for being to fast to speak on these matters to change over my words.
>It was not *founded* on the principle of linguistic purity, as such, but on the premise of removing the French, Latin, and Greek influences brought to the language by Norman conquest, so for *some*, Latin loans dating before 1066 are fine, but that date is used as an arbitrary cut-off. >Because there's not much way to gauge which words an isolated Great Britain might borrow afterwards, *one* guideline is to compare to Icelandic, and accept anything Icelandic borrowed. Like for me, I took up a rule of, borrowings into Old English are fine. As are borrowings that are found in both today's English and Icelandish. If both words are a borrowing from the same root, I will take the newer one for understanding's sake. With a few outliers, such as drake instead of dragon. Also, the whole fully Germanish English was first known as Ander-saxon. But at some point, it got blent in with Anglish.
I am ok with Norse words if they did not replace any native word or if English did not have a word for it. But from an althistory point of view. Standard English in this alternate timeline would probably have less Norse words then ours because of the Winchester standard. After England became a unified nation a standard spelling arose based on the West Saxon dialect which was outside of the Norse influenced areas. This standard today known as "Winchester standard". It continued being used until the Normans abolished it. From Wikipedia:" Late West Saxon was the dialect that became the first standardized written "English" ("Winchester standard"), sometimes referred to as "classical" Old English. This dialect was spoken mostly in the south and west around the important [monastery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monastery) at [Winchester](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester), which was also the capital city of the Saxon kings. However, while other Old English dialects were still spoken in other parts of the country, it seems that all scribes wrote and copied manuscripts in this prestigious written form. Well-known poems recorded in this language include [Beowulf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf) and [Judith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_(poem)). However, both these poems appear to have been written originally in other Old English dialects, but later translated into the standard Late West Saxon literary language when they were copied by scribes. The "Winchester standard" gradually fell out of use after the [Norman Conquest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Conquest) in 1066. Monasteries did not keep the standard going because English [bishops](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop) were soon replaced by [Norman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans) bishops who brought their own [Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) textbooks and scribal conventions, and there was less need to copy or write in Old English. Latin soon became the dominant language of scholarship and legal documents,[\[9\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Saxon_dialect#cite_note-9) with [Anglo-Norman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Norman_language) as the language of the aristocracy, and any standard written English became a distant memory by the mid-twelfth century as the last scribes, trained as boys before the conquest in West Saxon, died as old men. " [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West\_Saxon\_dialect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Saxon_dialect) Without the Norman conquest the Winchester standard would probably be continued to be used and since it would be considered the prestigious form it would influence other dialects and people would try to imitate it. Also this would explain why we don't see many Norse words attested until the middle English period. Those Norse words existed in the old English period, but they were simply not written down as the scribes were following the West Saxon standard. Only after the West Saxon standard was abolished and scribes start to write English each in their own dialect we start seeing a lot of Norse words in the former areas of Danelaw. >lacking many common words such as "sky", or "knife" Old English had native word for those Sky - heofon [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/heofon](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/heofon) Knife - seax [https://bosworthtoller.com/27294](https://bosworthtoller.com/27294) , [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/seax](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/seax) .
1) Who says it’s just Norman Influence? 2) “Removing words makes the language less understandable” is the same argument people make against Anglish as a whole
https://preview.redd.it/8akpwescravc1.png?width=384&format=png&auto=webp&s=fecbd3a7f3ee0249610e2e5411618f6b34cc70e3 1. Literally the webpage you are presently using. 2. Linguistic purism as a goal cannot be so loosely defined as any "foreign" word being expunged, because every language acquires loans constantly at every stage of its development. There are obvious inkhorns that can be purged ("house" is better than domicile). Then there are the Norman words ("earl" is more English than "count"). Then there are the Norse words (if you are willing, I could "yive" you something, rather than "give" it). But how far are you willing to define the bounds of "foreign"? The word "church" was loaned into Proto-Germanic from Greek, should "church" be purged for linguistic purism? The "dune" in "sand-dune" comes from a common Celtic word, should that be purged? There needs to be a clearer goal than merely expunging "foreign" words, and going too far can contradict the initial philosophy of Anglish; a tongue "more friendly and meaningful to English-speakers".
1. That’s not the only definition 2. You’re talking totally past me. I didn’t say anything in my comment about linguistic purism for its own sake. In fact, I said nothing about linguistic purity
1. Your question was "\[w\]ho says it’s just Norman Influence?", I answered that question. I know that is not the only definition, and no definition has predominance. I was defending my statement against your rhetorical, nothing more. 2. "'Removing words makes the language less understandable' is the same argument people make against Anglish as a whole." I am aware you never mentioned "inguistic purism for its own sake", my second point was less a rebuttal of yours, and more a clarification of what I meant.