Back in 2017 I posted about a crackpot theory of the Germanic presence in Britain called “Anglish and English: Why our language is 750 and not 1,500 years old”; Yvy tyvy commmented: “When I saw the word ‘Anglish,’ I thought this was going to be about modern English without borrowings. I am saddened.” Well, let the unsaddening begin, because that’s the point of anglish.org:
What is Anglish?
Anglish is a kind of English which prefers native words over those borrowed from foreign languages. Anglish is linguistic purism applied to English.
For example:
Dictionary > Wordbook
Famous > Nameknown
Native > Inborn
Decide > Choose
Computer > ReckonerThis is achieved by simply choosing to use a native word over a borrowed word, or if there is no modern native word for a given concept, Old English words can be revived and updated to modern spelling and phonology to be used for a modern meaning.
[…]More recently in the 21st century, author David Cowley has released his book called “How We’d Talk If the English Had Won in 1066“, among others, that goes into depth on the vocabulary and sound changes that happened to English as a result of Norman influence. Cowley is not the only one making new writings in and about Anglish, there are many online communities from YouTube to Reddit to Discord that generate new Anglish works on a regular basis. Many creators see this form of constrained writing as inspirational and challenging to their creativity.
As long as it’s just a stimulus to creativity and not a claim of superiority, I see nothing wrong with it. But I suspect the good people of the Anglish project (who sent me the link) expect more from it than it will give, and I’m also pretty sure that if the English had won in 1066 their language would have borrowed a lot of words anyway. That’s what languages do.
and I’m also pretty sure that if the English had won in 1066 their language would have borrowed a lot of words anyway
For a nice version of what it could be like, see JBR’s Alternese. Lots of borrowings indeed…
(And AFAIK even IOTL some of the Latinate/Romance and especially Norse borrowings go back to pre-1066 anyway.)
For a nice version of what it could be like, see JBR’s Alternese. Lots of borrowings indeed…
Interesting, thanks. From his summary of the situation in alternow:
Efforts to return English to “Saxon” have been around since the fifteenth century and were fairly popular in the 19th c. Reginald Pecock, the 15th c Bishop of Chichester, used his own coinages like outdraught (extract). The 16th c philosopher Ralph Lever invented witcraft (logic); the 17th c Baconian Nathaniel Fairfax preferred whereness to location. And so on.
Efforts to return English to “Saxon” …
If Harold had won at Hastings, that would hardly have stopped the Norman threat.
So he’d have to get support somewhere. Harold was already more than half Danish. The island would end up speaking Angle-Saxon-Dane-ish — indeed the Danegeld half already did.
@bloix
One wonders why Fairfax rejected the survival stall (O.E. steall). After all, since farm animals were not subject to a corresponding French invasion, it can be reasonably argued that they better preserve the Anglo-Saxon speech and traditions than their Frenchified human cohabitants. Even if one rejects this argument, I believe the defiantly grunting Anglo-Saxon pig could be as potent a symbol for English grit and determination as the uglier and more inedible bulldog.
I believe the defiantly grunting Anglo-Saxon pig could be as potent a symbol for English grit and determination as the uglier and more inedible bulldog.
Grits and bacon are good for breakfast, not for deterring foreign dastards.
On the shores of Gitche Gumee, Of the shining Big-Sea-Water …
Wholesale borrowing vs wholesale coinage using “native” morphemes/roots are two extremes. Both are interesting. I’ve always felt sympathy for efforts to use native morphemes, on the grounds that it is more internally consistent and possibly helpful to “the plebs”. English has a disturbing gulf between “big words” and “everyday vocabulary” — big words can be a source of both joy and oppression. It’s interesting to see where an alternative nativist approach might have led.
Japanese is an extreme example of inundation with loanwords, which are inextricably tied to the writing system. Mongolian is far more nativist (although hardly pure), and one of the problems I have with Mongolian is the use of native terminology, which is often enough just translated from Russian — that, and the fact that terminology has not been bedded down as well as it is in Chinese and Japanese.
not for deterring foreign dastards
i, for one, would much, much rather face down an adult bulldog than a fullgrown pig. and i would caution against anyone betting on the poor wee canine in a face-off between the two.
would much, much rather face down an adult bulldog than a fullgrown pig
People who think pigs aren’t dangerous don’t know what boars are.
(And back in the 11th century pigs were probably mostly just mildly pacified boars…)
As long as it’s just a stimulus to creativity and not a claim of superiority, I see nothing wrong with it.
Yeah, that’s the thing. It’s my understanding that *some* Anglish fans are just having fun, but *others* are straight-up racists and that’s all part of it. Because racism is the secret sauce that ruins everything.
I imagine this dichotomy makes it hard to find people to talk to, because if you’re in the first group you obviously just want to chat with fellow hobbyists but not with neonazis.
Yeah, that’s a problem with all sorts of apparently innocent topics in these wretched times.
I don’t think it’s about some kind of inherent wretchedness in the age. It’s more that we are in a time in which there is no consensus on etiquette, or as Frye (I think) put it, improvised societies have to make (up) their manners, and it is extraordinarily easy to give offense unintentionally, even if you are a Quentin Crisp.
It is an important plot point in Precious Bane that even the roughest English bulldogs (used for bear baiting in the story) are still fundamentally tame animals and (almost) completely harmless to someone who is good with animals and knows how to handle them.
@C Baker: Mention of the topic of the difficulty of distinguishing cultural pride and heritage from racism always makes me think of this 1986 Bloom County strip.
I don’t think it’s about some kind of inherent wretchedness in the age
I think there is a lot to unpack here. Suffice it to mention 1) (the slow passing of) “white colonialism” and 2) the economic disenfranchisement of the working classes thanks (in no small part) to neoliberalism and exploitative capitalism. Fascists and racists love to feed on the discontent that this generates.
(I’m not going to elaborate on this as it would take a major essay, or perhaps a book or two, to justify.)
I agree, though I’m not going to elaborate either.
One issue that comes to mind here is the concept of punching up vs. punching down in comedy. But of course that, too, can get derailed…
What occurred to me at once is the absurdity of a newsstand proprietor asking “What’s Ebony?” when he himself carries the product. When I was a child, my mother’s hairdresser carried it, and I used to look at it while she was having her hair cut.
I thought this post was fascinating and have featured it in my newsletter about English on the move. With a link to this blog, of course! I hope that’s okay. https://englishinprogress.substack.com/p/what-is-english-without-the-french
Of course, and I’m glad you liked it!
@John Cowan: I also remember wondering why the newsstand proprietor would ask that (as well as why Binkley was behaving out of character). You just have to chalk it up to the fact that characters in comic strips (some more than others) will behave unnaturally for the sake of a joke. Sometimes, the characters in Bloom County were explicitly just mouthpieces for the gags.