User talk:Eishiya/Displaced English words

Suggestions/threads that are finished will be removed to keep the clutter down.

Interesting

This is a frigging enormous project. Is that why it's in the user space? There are probably tens of thousands of words that could go on this list. I suppose borrowings that don't actually replace anything like computer don't go on this list, though. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Renard Migrant Correct, borrowings that don't replace anything don't belong here. Otherwise, this would just be a list of all the non-Germanic borrowings into English, which is already better served by the relevant categories on Wiktionary.

Even so, you're right, it's a very big project, and I don't expect to get it anywhere near "completion", and with the dedication I have, it's better off staying "hidden" in the user space :] I just hope to learn a little from doing this. If it grows too large, hopefully others will take over and turn it into an appendix or something similar. Eishiya (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Googling "displaced|replaced Middle English" site:en.wiktionary.org gets some hits, unfortunately "displaced|replaced {{etyl|enm|en}}" doesn't work because of the vertical bars, d'oh! Renard Migrant (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I've already searched "displaced" and got all the results onto the list. I hadn't thought of "replaced"; I should give that a try! Thanks for the suggestion. Also, I use the link template in the table rather than the mention template (which I use in the notes) because I think it's more appropriate and looks cleaner. M might be more appropriate in the etymology column though, I might start using it there.

By the way, if it's something you're interested in - when fixing spellings, check the English headword's entry and fix them there too. The entries are where I get the Old French, so if the list is wrong, it's because the entries are wrong. Same goes for just about everything else, though I do check some of the Middle English where it looks horrendously wrong. Eishiya (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

More suggestions

All months had native Germanic names in Old English. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Good suggestion! I'll add them to the to-do list, to tackle later.

There is also ġēola (> yule), though it's debatable whether Christmas replaced that one.

Would the months count as proper nouns or no? I think in modern English they are, but in OE looks like they weren't? Eishiya (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Good question. I’d add them in the main list. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Another thing to check is adjectives that correspond to basic nouns. For example, the adjectives corresponding to water and moon are all Graeco-Romance (aquatic, hydric, lunar). Surely they replaced native adjectives. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

device		begiming	from Latin divisus via Old French devis
pressure		ofsetting	from Latin pressura

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Added caesar. I've left device and pressure out for now because I can't find anything on Wiktionary itself to support those. My plan was to base this table primarily on information available on Wiktionary, rather than external sources (I know, I know...). I am not opposed to adding them, but I think it'd be good to cite them in the notes, since the lead-in text does say everything's sourced from Wiktionary except where noted. Eishiya (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Question on words with synonyms

Consider the verb æwnian, it was displaced by marry (Romance) and wed (Germanic). How are you treating such cases? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I would count marry as the displacing word and æwnian as the displaced, and add a note that it did not displace a Germanic synonym (wed), similar to how it is for member in the table right now - lith was largely displaced, but limb was not, even though it was limb that did most of the displacing. Eishiya (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You bring up a very valid point: it was not necessarily the Romance word that displaced the native word--it was just as often a (more common) native word ousting a more obscure native word. Is it safe to simply assume then that Romance gets all the credit for this ? Leasnam (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I like to think of it this way: (because displacing makes it seem as though it were intentional)--Middle English experienced an influx of words from multiple sources: Native, Norse, French, Dutch, Latin, Greek. They overwhelmed the ME wordhoard with surplus--WAY to many words for the same thing. Then a process of word attrition occurs, where it's basically survival of the fittest. Personal preference really dominated here, and we end up with today's melange of words... Leasnam (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No simple format can capture the nuances of how words shifted in use and meaning, or even exactly where they come from (consider the numerous native words that were reinforced by loans and could not be said to be either truly native or loans). The table is currently organized by Romance-based words, so they do "get all the credit." A relational approach would be much better, but that's not as easy to present on a page or a series of pages. The current format has many, many problems, but if we were to try to address all of them, we'd get nothing done at all. We could limit the table only to (1) non-Germanic words that came to dominate a particular common sense and (2) lack a common Germanic synonym. It would be much more manageable then (no eelpouts/burbots or marriages to worry about), and it would avoid some of the situations where we currently assign credit. But then, 1. what counts as common? 2. Would a table limited in such a way still be useful (assuming it's useful now)? Eishiya (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It's useful, yes, and you should be commended for all the work you've put into it. If only I had your energy and determination ! :) Leasnam (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Or I should be punished! I should've been working on other things! I'll have to take a break from this for a while, but I'll be back. I've changed the intro blurb to allow others to edit the main table, with some notes on keeping it stylistically consistent. Eishiya (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I did some research, and it doesn't look like ǣwnian even made it to Middle English...so it never faced off with ME marien (“to marry”)--the two words never met each other. I'm sure marien filled the gap left (as did ME spousen and iwiven), but this can hardly be called displacement. Maybe leave this word out, or add something in the notes ? Leasnam (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't you think it's more likely that the word was displaced by its OE synonyms rather than died on its own and left a gap to be filled? In any case, I think it should be mentioned in the notes. Even though it wasn't displaced by marry, it's still a displaced Germanic word that may be of interest despite not being 100% on-topic. I think there are quite a few such OE words on the list, and I'd rather have them included somehow (either in the list proper, or in the notes) than forgotten entirely. If there was a list of "OE words displaced by OE synonyms" then such words would go there, but there isn't such a list. Eishiya (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The word didn't seem all that common in OE times, and it was probably a religious or higher register word (cf. ǣw (“law; marriage”)), so it's possible and even likely that it could have simply died out on its own. Had the AngloSaxon hegemony continued unbroken to today, we may have had a similar situation as Icelandic, where this word may have been preserved as a rare or poetic type word with limited usage, or as a novelty. We can add it though, sure Leasnam (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, it's been added :) Leasnam (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Some suggestions

• Citizenship - burgræden
• Astronomy; - tungolcræft (Astrology (?)); tungolæ, tungolcræftwíse
• Astrology - tungolgescead, starcræft (OE word??)

--ReordCræft (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Creation of Appendix from the information already collected

• It seems like this draft page has been forgotten for awhile and I don't see it changing unless we make the draft into a proper page and involve other users interested in Old English and vocabulary change. Please provide any suggestions or plans you may have. I would also like to thank User:Eishiya for this great contribution. --ReordCræft (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

For me, the subject of replacement of Classical English vocabulary by foreign sources is a tale that's been hashed and rehashed to death. It's old. Now, the page is great and the work done by Eishiya is to be commended! Not an easy task in light of the tedious formatting. But this seems better suited to the interests of a Latin enthusiast, not one in OE. The latter would find a page highlighting revived native words, or words of native origin gaining ground over grandfathered latinate terminology more interesting, a focus which seems ever on the rise nowadays... Leasnam (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

That was not my point, I'm not introducing Anglish or Ednew English to Wiktionary, or somehow trying to help resurrect old words.. The Appendix would be a welcome thing in showing vocabulary change overtime (with some additions and overall refinement such as providing approximate time of borrowing/displacement). As the material is vast, it could even be split in sections, chronologically arranged.. according to let's say centuries. That's the whole deal. I think Wiktionary would be benefited by producing such kind of material. --ReordCræft (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you found this interesting, and though I didn't intend it as a draft, I'd love to see this as an Appendix! I haven't forgotten it, but I haven't had time or the resources for it and hope that more devoted users can do more with it than I can. If there's interest from others in expanding this list, I want them to be able to do so! I also agree that this kind of information is fascinating in the context of vocabulary change, though I'm also not sure that focusing on OE (or Latin, for that matter) enthusiasts is the way to go, though I'm sure it's of interest too. I'm regretting calling it "displaced English words" to be honest, and hope that a better-informed person will come up with a more appropriate name for the Appendix. Sorting it by approximate date sounds like a great idea to me, by the way! WT doesn't deal with time enough. Eishiya (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)