English minus the non-Germanic words

84356 views
Skip to first unread message

Rick Harrison

unread,
Jun 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/10/98
to

The following item shows what English would look like if it
were purged of its non-Germanic words, and used German-style
compounds instead of borrowings to express new concepts.
This recently appeared in the Conlang mailing list.

=====cut here=====

Here is Poul Anderson's essay "Uncleftish Beholding" ("Atomic
Theory"), reprinted from the revised edition appearing in his
collection _All One Universe_.


For most of its being, mankind did not know what things are made
of, but could only guess. With the growth of worldken, we began
to learn, and today we have a beholding of stuff and work that
watching bears out, both in the workstead and in daily life.

The underlying kinds of stuff are the *firststuffs*, which link
together in sundry ways to give rise to the rest. Formerly we
knew of ninety-two firststuffs, from waterstuff, the lightest and
barest, to ymirstuff, the heaviest. Now we have made more, such
as aegirstuff and helstuff.

The firststuffs have their being as motes called *unclefts*.
These are mightly small; one seedweight of waterstuff holds a
tale of them like unto two followed by twenty-two naughts. Most
unclefts link together to make what are called *bulkbits*. Thus,
the waterstuff bulkbit bestands of two waterstuff unclefts, the
sourstuff bulkbit of two sourstuff unclefts, and so on. (Some
kinds, such as sunstuff, keep alone; others, such as iron, cling
together in ices when in the fast standing; and there are yet
more yokeways.) When unlike clefts link in a bulkbit, they make
*bindings*. Thus, water is a binding of two waterstuff unclefts
with one sourstuff uncleft, while a bulkbit of one of the
forestuffs making up flesh may have a thousand thousand or more
unclefts of these two firststuffs together with coalstuff and
chokestuff.

At first is was thought that the uncleft was a hard thing that
could be split no further; hence the name. Now we know it is made
up of lesser motes. There is a heavy *kernel* with a forward
bernstonish lading, and around it one or more light motes with
backward ladings. The least uncleft is that of ordinary
waterstuff. Its kernel is a lone forwardladen mote called a
*firstbit*. Outside it is a backwardladen mote called a
*bernstonebit*. The firstbit has a heaviness about 1840-fold that
of the bernstonebit. Early worldken folk thought bernstonebits
swing around the kernel like the earth around the sun, but now we
understand they are more like waves or clouds.

In all other unclefts are found other motes as well, about as
heavy as the firstbit but with no lading, known as *neitherbits*.
We know a kind of waterstuff with one neitherbit in the kernel
along with the firstbit; another kind has two neitherbits. Both
kinds are seldom.

The next greatest firststuff is sunstuff, which has two firstbits
and two bernstonebits. The everyday sort also has two neitherbits
in the kernel. If there are more or less, the uncleft will soon
break asunder. More about this later.

The third firststuff is stonestuff, with three firstbits, three
bernstonebits, and its own share of neitherbits. And so it goes,
on through such everyday stuffs as coalstuff (six firstbits) or
iron (26) to ones more lately found. Ymirstuff (92) was the last
until men began to make some higher still.

It is the bernstonebits that link, and so their tale fastsets how
a firststuff behaves and what kinds of bulkbits it can help make.
The worldken of this behaving, in all its manifold ways, is
called *minglingken*. Minglingers have found that as the
uncleftish tale of the firststuffs (that is, the tale of
firststuffs in their kernels) waxes, after a while they begin to
show ownships not unlike those of others that went before them.
So, for a showdeal, stonestuff (3), glasswortstuff (11),
potashstuff (19), redstuff (37), and bluegraystuff (55) can each
link with only one uncleft of waterstuff, while coalstuff (6),
flintstuff (14), germanstuff (22), tin (50), and lead (82) can
each link with four. This is readily seen when all are set forth
in what is called the *roundaround board of the firststuffs*.

When an uncleft or a bulkbit wins one or more bernstonebits above
its own, it takes on a backward lading. When it loses one or
more, it takes on a forward lading. Such a mote is called a
*farer*, for that the drag between unlike ladings flits it. When
bernstonebits flit by themselves, it may be as a bolt of
lightning, a spark off some faststanding chunk, or the everyday
flow of bernstoneness through wires.

Coming back to the uncleft itself, the heavier it is, the more
neitherbits as well as firstbits in its kernel. Indeed, soon the
tale of neitherbits is the greater. Unclefts with the same tale
of firstbits but unlike tales of neitherbits are called
*samesteads*. Thus, everyday sourstuff has eight neitherbits with
its eight firstbits, but there are also kinds with five, six,
seven, nine, ten, and eleven neitherbits. A samestead is known by
the tale of both kernel motes, so that we have sourstuff-13,
sourstuff-14, and so on, with sourstuff-16 being by far the most
found. Having the same number of bernstonebits, the samesteads of
a firststuff behave almost alike minglingly. They do show some
unlikenesses, outstandingly among the heavier ones, and these can
be worked to sunder samesteads from each other.

Most samesteads of every firststuff are unabiding. Their kernels
break up, each at its own speed. This speed is written as the
*half-life*, which is how long it takes half of any deal of the
samestead thus to shift itself. The doing is known as
*lightrotting*. It may happen fast or slowly, and in any of
sundry ways, offhanging on the makeup of the kernel. A kernel may
spit out two firstbits with two neitherbits, that is, a sunstuff
kernel, thus leaping two steads back in the roundaround board and
four weights back in heaviness. It may give off a bernstonebit
from a neitherbit, which thereby becomes a firstbit and thrusts
the uncleft one stead up in the board while keeping the same
weight. It may give off a *forwardbit*, which is a mote with the
same weight as a bernstonebit but a forward lading, and thereby
spring one stead down in the board while keeping the same weight.
Often, too, a mote is given off with neither lading nor
heaviness, called the *weeneitherbit*. In much lightrotting, a
mote of light with most short wavelength comes out as well.

For although light oftenest behaves as a wave, it can be looked
on as a mote, the *lightbit*. We have already said by the way
that a mote of stuff can behave not only as a chunk, but as a
wave. Down among the unclefts, things do not happen in steady
flowings, but in leaps between bestandings that are forbidden.
The knowledge-hunt of this is called *lump beholding*.

Nor are stuff and work unakin. Rather, they are groundwise the
same, and one can be shifted into the other. The kinship between
them is that work is like unto weight manifolded by the fourside
of the haste of light.

By shooting motes into kernels, worldken folk have shifted
samesteads of one firststuff into samesteads of another. Thus did
they make ymirstuff into aegirstuff and helstuff, and they have
afterward gone beyond these. The heavier firststuffs are all
highly lightrottish and therefore are not found in the
greenworld.

Some of the higher samesteads are *splitly*. That is, when a
neitherbit strikes the kernel of one, as for a showdeal
ymirstuff-235, it bursts into lesser kernels and free
neitherbits; the latter can then split more ymirstuff-235. When
this happens, weight shifts into work. It is not much of the
whole, but nevertheless it is awesome.

With enough strength, lightweight unclefts can be made to
togethermelt. In the sun, through a row of strikings and
lightrottings, four unclefts of waterstuff in this wise become
one of sunstuff. Again some weight is lost as work, and again
this is greatly big when set beside the work gotten from a
minglingish doing such as fire.

Today we wield both kind of uncleftish doings in weapons, and
kernelish splitting gives us heat and bernstoneness. We hope to
do likewise with togethermelting, which would yield an unhemmed
wellspring of work for mankindish goodgain.

Soothly we live in mighty years!

Paul O Bartlett

unread,
Jun 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/11/98
to

On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Rick Harrison wrote:

> The following item shows what English would look like if it
> were purged of its non-Germanic words, and used German-style
> compounds instead of borrowings to express new concepts.
> This recently appeared in the Conlang mailing list.

> [essay omitted]

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Elias Molee advocated an
English purged of its Romance components. Although I have not
had the opportunity to read them, he made his case in two
books, "Pure Saxon English" and "Plea for an American Language,
or Germanic-English." He went on to propose Tutonish, a "union
tongue" for all the Germanic-language speaking people, with a
schematised English syntax and a largely German- and
Scandinavian-based vocabulary. Whether Molee's work may have had
any influence on Poul Anderson's "Uncleftish Beholding" I have no
information.

--
Paul <pob...@access.digex.net>
..........................................................
Paul O. Bartlett, P.O. Box 857, Vienna, VA 22183-0857, USA
Finger, keyserver, or WWW for PGP public key
Home Page: http://www.access.digex.net/~pobart

Steinar Midtskogen

unread,
Jun 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/11/98
to

[Rick Harrison]

> The following item shows what English would look like if it
> were purged of its non-Germanic words, and used German-style
> compounds instead of borrowings to express new concepts.
> This recently appeared in the Conlang mailing list.

...

> backward ladings. The least uncleft is that of ordinary

"Ordinary" is Latin.

--
Steinar Midtskogen, stud.scient.; <URL:http://www.stud.ifi.uio.no/~steinarm/>

A.M.Callaway

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to

Rick Harrison wrote in message ...

>The following item shows what English would look like if it
>were purged of its non-Germanic words, and used German-style
>compounds instead of borrowings to express new concepts.
>This recently appeared in the Conlang mailing list.
>
>=====cut here=====
[done]

Cool. It doen't, however, solve the spelling problem...

A.M.Callaway
ac...@ozemail.com.au

kesha...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 27, 2011, 11:14:28 PM11/27/11
to
What is it?
The book with all answerer's lie before us, theology book, a story book, guide book, everything! The wonderful new paper smell that comes from opening the hard cover
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

16mberu...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 5, 2012, 1:04:25 PM12/5/12
to

ben bastian

unread,
Dec 5, 2012, 1:05:19 PM12/5/12
to

matt ostap

unread,
Dec 5, 2012, 1:05:59 PM12/5/12
to
il matto

16bba...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 5, 2012, 1:51:16 PM12/5/12
to
On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 1:05:59 PM UTC-5, matt ostap wrote:
> il matto

No you fools! Not here! They're going to discover us!

Polina

unread,
Dec 8, 2012, 5:40:36 PM12/8/12
to
I see that "oxygen" is "sourstuff" here. In Russian, the words for "oxygen" and "sour" have the same root. O.o Coincidence?

John W Kennedy

unread,
Dec 8, 2012, 8:19:25 PM12/8/12
to
On 2012-12-08 22:40:36 +0000, Polina said:

> I see that "oxygen" is "sourstuff" here. In Russian, the words for
> "oxygen" and "sour" have the same root. O.o Coincidence?

Old, incorrect theory. For a time, it was thought that all acids
contained oxygen. "Muriatic acid", for example, was thought to be a
compound of hydrogen, oxygen, and a hypothetical element given the name
"murium". Turned out to be HCl. No oxygen, and "murium" never existed.

And "oxygen" is no different; "oxy-" is from the Greek word for "acid".

--
John W Kennedy
"...if you had to fall in love with someone who was evil, I can see why
it was her."
-- "Alias"

Curlytop

unread,
Dec 16, 2012, 6:03:37 AM12/16/12
to
John W Kennedy set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

> On 2012-12-08 22:40:36 +0000, Polina said:
>
>> I see that "oxygen" is "sourstuff" here. In Russian, the words for
>> "oxygen" and "sour" have the same root. O.o Coincidence?
>
> Old, incorrect theory. For a time, it was thought that all acids
> contained oxygen. "Muriatic acid", for example, was thought to be a
> compound of hydrogen, oxygen, and a hypothetical element given the name
> "murium". Turned out to be HCl. No oxygen, and "murium" never existed.

There was also "oxymuriatic acid", supposedly a loose compound of muriatic
acid with extra oxygen, which made it an excellent bleach, certainly when
dissolved in water.

Humphrey Davy finally cleared the matter up in the 1840's, determining that
oxymuriatic acid, when pure, could not be shown to actually contain any
oxygen! The oxygen only appeared when oxymuriatic acid was dissolved in
water, and presumably it came from the water. Since the pure substance was
slightly greenish in colour, Davy proposed the name "chlorine" from the
Greek word for green. His name has now stuck.

Muriatic acid and the muriates are now obsolete apart from continued use in
some fringe medical circles. ("Nat.Mur." = sodium chloride = common salt.)
--
ξ: ) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

John W Kennedy

unread,
Dec 16, 2012, 11:35:45 AM12/16/12
to
Seems to still be used commercially to describe dilute HCl used as a
cleaning agent. "Muriatic" comes from the Latin word for "wall" (from
which we also get "mural" and "intramural", etc.), because the stuff is
effective for cleaning bricks.

--
John W Kennedy
"The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything...."
-- Emile Cammaerts, "The Laughing Prophet"

bent_...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jan 13, 2013, 3:04:41 PM1/13/13
to
On Saturday, December 8, 2012 11:40:36 PM UTC+1, Polina wrote:
> I see that "oxygen" is "sourstuff" here. In Russian, the words for "oxygen" and "sour" have the same root. O.o Coincidence?

A slightly outdated word for oxygen in Norwegian is also literally "sourstuff" (Nor: "surstoff"). It's not commonly used, except perhaps in reference to oxygen tanks for divers, and of course in older literature.

AV3

unread,
Jan 13, 2013, 4:56:54 PM1/13/13
to
All true, but still many languages' word for oxygen comes from the
out-dated supposition that oxygen is a necessary constituent of acid, i.
e., acid-forming, acidic. So words like the German "Sauerstoff" do not
refer to a kind of taste but to a frequent but not absolutely necessary
chemical property.


--
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ ||
|| Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

piggi...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 23, 2013, 9:56:12 PM1/23/13
to
On Saturday, December 8, 2012 5:40:36 PM UTC-5, Polina wrote:
> I see that "oxygen" is "sourstuff" here. In Russian, the words for "oxygen" and "sour" have the same root. O.o Coincidence?

In German Oxygen is "Sauerstoff" literally: "Sourstuff"... The idea is that English is a germanic language. It's interesting though to know that in other languages, such as russian and norwegian, it's also "sourstuff"....

-Adam

rogi...@btinternet.com

unread,
Apr 26, 2013, 1:10:13 AM4/26/13
to
OXYS (m); OXEIA (f); OXY (n) is Greek for "sharp"... by extension "sharp-tasting" or as we would say "sour"... and it is from this that Oxygen got its name; as the maker of sour things, i.e. acids. But OXY does not really mean "acid"... the Greeks did not have our modern concept of acid.

OK?

John W. Kennedy

unread,
Apr 26, 2013, 10:01:36 AM4/26/13
to
True, as far as it goes, but "οξυ-" meaning "acidic" as at least as
old as the 2nd century AD, long, long, long before Lavoisier.

klein...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 3, 2014, 7:25:11 PM2/3/14
to
On Saturday, 8 December 2012 23:40:36 UTC+1, Polina wrote:
> I see that "oxygen" is "sourstuff" here. In Russian, the words for "oxygen" and "sour" have the same root. O.o Coincidence?

Dutch too: zuurstof, literally sourstuff, for oxygen.

illusi...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 4, 2014, 12:28:44 PM2/4/14
to
came here from Vsauce

boris....@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 30, 2014, 8:15:49 AM4/30/14
to
stuff is from german stoff, no?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stoffs

jev...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 30, 2014, 10:48:33 AM4/30/14
to
On Saturday, 8 December 2012 22:40:36 UTC, Polina wrote:
> I see that "oxygen" is "sourstuff" here. In Russian, the words for "oxygen" and "sour" have the same root. O.o Coincidence?

Russian кислород would stand for "sour bringer", not just "stuff"

alexin...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 30, 2014, 1:26:26 PM4/30/14
to
It may be irrelevant to a discussion of English, but in both Chinese and Japanese, there is no distinction between the basic word for "acid" and for "sour". Call me a dunce in chemistry, but I never realized that sour-tasting things were acidic until I learned Chinese.

nate....@gmail.com

unread,
May 1, 2014, 10:13:53 AM5/1/14
to
On Sunday, December 9, 2012 12:40:36 AM UTC+2, Polina wrote:
> I see that "oxygen" is "sourstuff" here. In Russian, the words for "oxygen" and "sour" have the same root. O.o Coincidence?

In Hebrew too! It is also connected to the word for vinegar.
Chometz - vinegar
Chamtzan - oxygen
Chamutz - sour
I think this is because of oxidization that happens to fruits makes them sour.

John W Kennedy

unread,
May 1, 2014, 7:40:05 PM5/1/14
to
No, it's because, from Lavoisier until Davy, chemists incorrectly
believed that all acids contained oxygen. (Indeed, some chemistry texts
continued to maintain it for generations.) I explained all this when
this thread started, two years ago.

--
John W Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich
have always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Man Who Was Thursday"

chrism...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 12, 2014, 10:44:35 PM6/12/14
to
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 12:28:44 UTC-5, illusi...@gmail.com wrote:
> came here from Vsauce

So did i!

mat...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 17, 2014, 1:20:16 PM11/17/14
to
On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 13:15:49 UTC+1, boris....@gmail.com wrote:
> stuff is from german stoff, no?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stoffs

Interesting, it seems that the word 'stuff' actually comes from French, not from Anglo-Saxon. Further confirmation: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=stuff

So we can add that to "around" and "ordinary" that come from Italic sources. "Stuff" is pretty heavily used in the text as well, I wonder if Anderson could find anything pre-Norman to replace it with.

90...@eesd.org

unread,
Nov 19, 2014, 11:48:01 PM11/19/14
to
Anglish!

simon.ti...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 1, 2015, 1:43:43 AM3/1/15
to
In swedish (and other nordic languages) there is a word meaning "stuff": ämne. For example "firststuff" in the text translates to "grundämne" in swedish. "Grund" meaning basic or foundation and "ämne" meaning stuff.

It seems to exist in old english as well: efne. www.oldenglishtranslator.co.uk/ translates efne to "material". I haven't really checked if it is valid, but maybe something to consider.

John W Kennedy

unread,
Mar 1, 2015, 12:09:20 PM3/1/15
to
For whatever it's worth, although "stuff" made it into English from
French, French appears to have gotten it from Old High German.

--
John W Kennedy
"When a man contemplates forcing his own convictions down another man's
throat, he is contemplating both an unchristian act and an act of
treason to the United States."
-- Joy Davidman, "Smoke on the Mountain"

1813...@stu.whsd1.org

unread,
Dec 29, 2016, 9:12:33 PM12/29/16
to
Thanks Vsauce for the link...they have neat wordingstuff...

zyklonben...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 3, 2017, 11:39:06 PM3/3/17
to
On Wednesday, June 10, 1998 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Rick Harrison wrote:
> The following item shows what English would look like if it
> were purged of its non-Germanic words, and used German-style
> compounds instead of borrowings to express new concepts.
> This recently appeared in the Conlang mailing list.
>
> =====cut here=====
>
> Here is Poul Anderson's essay "Uncleftish Beholding" ("Atomic
> Theory"), reprinted from the revised edition appearing in his
> collection _All One Universe_.
>
>
> For most of its being, mankind did not know what things are made
> of, but could only guess. With the growth of worldken, we began
> to learn, and today we have a beholding of stuff and work that
> watching bears out, both in the workstead and in daily life.
>
> The underlying kinds of stuff are the *firststuffs*, which link
> together in sundry ways to give rise to the rest. Formerly we
> knew of ninety-two firststuffs, from waterstuff, the lightest and
> barest, to ymirstuff, the heaviest. Now we have made more, such
> as aegirstuff and helstuff.
>
> The firststuffs have their being as motes called *unclefts*.
> These are mightly small; one seedweight of waterstuff holds a
> tale of them like unto two followed by twenty-two naughts. Most
> unclefts link together to make what are called *bulkbits*. Thus,
> the waterstuff bulkbit bestands of two waterstuff unclefts, the
> sourstuff bulkbit of two sourstuff unclefts, and so on. (Some
> kinds, such as sunstuff, keep alone; others, such as iron, cling
> together in ices when in the fast standing; and there are yet
> more yokeways.) When unlike clefts link in a bulkbit, they make
> *bindings*. Thus, water is a binding of two waterstuff unclefts
> with one sourstuff uncleft, while a bulkbit of one of the
> forestuffs making up flesh may have a thousand thousand or more
> unclefts of these two firststuffs together with coalstuff and
> chokestuff.
>
> At first is was thought that the uncleft was a hard thing that
> could be split no further; hence the name. Now we know it is made
> up of lesser motes. There is a heavy *kernel* with a forward
> bernstonish lading, and around it one or more light motes with
> backward ladings. The least uncleft is that of ordinary
> waterstuff. Its kernel is a lone forwardladen mote called a
> *firstbit*. Outside it is a backwardladen mote called a
> *bernstonebit*. The firstbit has a heaviness about 1840-fold that
> of the bernstonebit. Early worldken folk thought bernstonebits
> swing around the kernel like the earth around the sun, but now we
> understand they are more like waves or clouds.
>
> In all other unclefts are found other motes as well, about as
> heavy as the firstbit but with no lading, known as *neitherbits*.
> We know a kind of waterstuff with one neitherbit in the kernel
> along with the firstbit; another kind has two neitherbits. Both
> kinds are seldom.
>
> The next greatest firststuff is sunstuff, which has two firstbits
> and two bernstonebits. The everyday sort also has two neitherbits
> in the kernel. If there are more or less, the uncleft will soon
> break asunder. More about this later.
>
> The third firststuff is stonestuff, with three firstbits, three
> bernstonebits, and its own share of neitherbits. And so it goes,
> on through such everyday stuffs as coalstuff (six firstbits) or
> iron (26) to ones more lately found. Ymirstuff (92) was the last
> until men began to make some higher still.
>
> It is the bernstonebits that link, and so their tale fastsets how
> a firststuff behaves and what kinds of bulkbits it can help make.
> The worldken of this behaving, in all its manifold ways, is
> called *minglingken*. Minglingers have found that as the
> uncleftish tale of the firststuffs (that is, the tale of
> firststuffs in their kernels) waxes, after a while they begin to
> show ownships not unlike those of others that went before them.
> So, for a showdeal, stonestuff (3), glasswortstuff (11),
> potashstuff (19), redstuff (37), and bluegraystuff (55) can each
> link with only one uncleft of waterstuff, while coalstuff (6),
> flintstuff (14), germanstuff (22), tin (50), and lead (82) can
> each link with four. This is readily seen when all are set forth
> in what is called the *roundaround board of the firststuffs*.
>
> When an uncleft or a bulkbit wins one or more bernstonebits above
> its own, it takes on a backward lading. When it loses one or
> more, it takes on a forward lading. Such a mote is called a
> *farer*, for that the drag between unlike ladings flits it. When
> bernstonebits flit by themselves, it may be as a bolt of
> lightning, a spark off some faststanding chunk, or the everyday
> flow of bernstoneness through wires.
>
> Coming back to the uncleft itself, the heavier it is, the more
> neitherbits as well as firstbits in its kernel. Indeed, soon the
> tale of neitherbits is the greater. Unclefts with the same tale
> of firstbits but unlike tales of neitherbits are called
> *samesteads*. Thus, everyday sourstuff has eight neitherbits with
> its eight firstbits, but there are also kinds with five, six,
> seven, nine, ten, and eleven neitherbits. A samestead is known by
> the tale of both kernel motes, so that we have sourstuff-13,
> sourstuff-14, and so on, with sourstuff-16 being by far the most
> found. Having the same number of bernstonebits, the samesteads of
> a firststuff behave almost alike minglingly. They do show some
> unlikenesses, outstandingly among the heavier ones, and these can
> be worked to sunder samesteads from each other.
>
> Most samesteads of every firststuff are unabiding. Their kernels
> break up, each at its own speed. This speed is written as the
> *half-life*, which is how long it takes half of any deal of the
> samestead thus to shift itself. The doing is known as
> *lightrotting*. It may happen fast or slowly, and in any of
> sundry ways, offhanging on the makeup of the kernel. A kernel may
> spit out two firstbits with two neitherbits, that is, a sunstuff
> kernel, thus leaping two steads back in the roundaround board and
> four weights back in heaviness. It may give off a bernstonebit
> from a neitherbit, which thereby becomes a firstbit and thrusts
> the uncleft one stead up in the board while keeping the same
> weight. It may give off a *forwardbit*, which is a mote with the
> same weight as a bernstonebit but a forward lading, and thereby
> spring one stead down in the board while keeping the same weight.
> Often, too, a mote is given off with neither lading nor
> heaviness, called the *weeneitherbit*. In much lightrotting, a
> mote of light with most short wavelength comes out as well.
>
> For although light oftenest behaves as a wave, it can be looked
> on as a mote, the *lightbit*. We have already said by the way
> that a mote of stuff can behave not only as a chunk, but as a
> wave. Down among the unclefts, things do not happen in steady
> flowings, but in leaps between bestandings that are forbidden.
> The knowledge-hunt of this is called *lump beholding*.
>
> Nor are stuff and work unakin. Rather, they are groundwise the
> same, and one can be shifted into the other. The kinship between
> them is that work is like unto weight manifolded by the fourside
> of the haste of light.
>
> By shooting motes into kernels, worldken folk have shifted
> samesteads of one firststuff into samesteads of another. Thus did
> they make ymirstuff into aegirstuff and helstuff, and they have
> afterward gone beyond these. The heavier firststuffs are all
> highly lightrottish and therefore are not found in the
> greenworld.
>
> Some of the higher samesteads are *splitly*. That is, when a
> neitherbit strikes the kernel of one, as for a showdeal
> ymirstuff-235, it bursts into lesser kernels and free
> neitherbits; the latter can then split more ymirstuff-235. When
> this happens, weight shifts into work. It is not much of the
> whole, but nevertheless it is awesome.
>
> With enough strength, lightweight unclefts can be made to
> togethermelt. In the sun, through a row of strikings and
> lightrottings, four unclefts of waterstuff in this wise become
> one of sunstuff. Again some weight is lost as work, and again
> this is greatly big when set beside the work gotten from a
> minglingish doing such as fire.
>
> Today we wield both kind of uncleftish doings in weapons, and
> kernelish splitting gives us heat and bernstoneness. We hope to
> do likewise with togethermelting, which would yield an unhemmed
> wellspring of work for mankindish goodgain.
>
> Soothly we live in mighty years!

my name chef

krpr...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 6, 2019, 12:12:18 AM2/6/19
to
On Wednesday, June 10, 1998 at 12:30:00 PM UTC+5:30, Rick Harrison wrote:
> The following item shows what English would look like if it
> were purged of its non-Germanic words, and used German-style
> compounds instead of borrowings to express new concepts.
> This recently appeared in the Conlang mailing list.


Here's how the essay might look like in modern English:

For most of its being, mankind did not know what things are made
of, but could only guess. With the growth of physics, we began
to learn, and today we have a theory of matter and energy that
watching bears out, both in the labaratory and in daily life.

The underlying kinds of matter are the *elements*, which link
together in sundry ways to give rise to the rest. Formerly we
knew of ninety-two elements, from hydrogen, the lightest and
barest, to Uranium, the heaviest. Now we have made more, such
as Neptunium and Plutonium.

The elements have their being as particles called *atoms*.
These are mightly small; one gram of hydrogen holds a
number of them equal to two followed by twenty-two zeros. Most
atoms link together to make what are called *molecules*. Thus,
the hydrogen molecule contains two hydrogen atoms, the
oxygen molecule contains two oxygen atoms, and so on. (Some
kinds, such as helium, keep alone; others, such as iron, cling
together in lattices when in the solid state; and there are yet
more bondings.) When unlike atoms link in a molecule, they make
*compounds*. Thus, water is a compound of two hydrogen atoms
with one oxygen atom, while a molecule of one of the
cells making up flesh may have a thousand or more
atoms of these two elements together with Carbon and
Nitrogen.

At first it was thought that the atom was a hard thing that
could be split no further; hence the name. Now we know it is made
up of smaller particles. There is a heavy *nucleus* with a positive
electric charge, and around it one or more light particles with
negative charges. The least atom is that of ordinary
hydrogen. Its nucleus is a lone positively charged particle called a
*proton*. Outside it is a negatively charged particle called a
*electron*. The proton has a mass of about 1840-times that
of the electron. Early physicists thought electrons
revolve around the nucleus like the earth around the sun, but now we
understand they are more like waves or clouds.

In all other atoms are found other particles as well, about as
heavy as the proton but with no charge, known as *neutrons*.
We know an isotope of hydrogen with one neutron in the nucleus
along with the proton; another isotope has two neutrons. Both
isotopes are rare.

The next greatest element is helium, which has two protons
and two electrons. The abundant isotope has two neutrons
in the nucleus. If there are more or less, the atom will soon
break apart. More about this later.

The third element is Lithium, with three protons, three
electrons, and its own share of neutrons. And so it goes,
on through such everyday elements as Carbon (six protons) or
iron (26) to ones more lately found. Uranium (92) was the last
until men began to make some higher still.

It is the electrons that gets shared, and so their number decides how
a element behaves and what kinds of molecules it can help make.
The physics of this behaving, in all its manifold ways, is
called *Chemistry*. Chemists have found that as the
atomic number of the elements (that is, the number of
protons in their nucleus) increases, after a while they begin to
show properties not unlike those of others that went before them.
So, for an example, Lithium (3), Sodium (11),
Potassium (19), Rubidium (37), and Cesium (55) can each
bond with only one atom of hydrogen, while Carbon (6),
Silicon (14), Titanium (22), tin (50), and lead (82) can
each bond with four. This is readily seen when all are set forth
in what is called the *periodic table of the elements*.

When an atom or a molecule gains one or more electrons above
its own, it takes on a negative charge. When it loses one or
more, it takes on a positive charge. Such a particle is called an
*ion*, for that the attraction between unlike charges moves it. When
electrons flow by themselves, it may be as a bolt of
lightning, a spark off some solid matter, or the everyday
flow of electricity through wires.

Coming back to the atom itself, the heavier it is, the more
neutrons as well as protons in its nucleus. Indeed, soon the
number of neutrons becomes greater. Atoms with the same number
of protons but unlike number of neutrons are called
*isotopes*. Thus, most abundant isotope of oxygen has eight neutrons with
its eight protons, but there are also isotopes with five, six,
seven, nine, ten, and eleven neutrons. A isotope is known by
the number of nucleons, so that we have oxygen-13,
oxygen-14, and so on, with oxygen-16 being by far the most
found. Having the same number of electrons, the isotopes of
a element behave almost alike chemically. They do show some
differences, outstandingly among the heavier ones, and these can
be worked to differentiate isotopes from each other.

Most isotopes of every element are unstable. Their nuclei
decay, each at its own rate. This rate is called as the
*half-life*, which is how long it takes half of any quantity of the
isotope thus to decat. The process is known as
*radioactive decay*. It may happen fast or slowly, and in any of
the many ways, depending on the composition of the nucleus. A nucleus may
spit out two protons with two neutrons, that is, a helium
nucleus, thus leaping two places back in the periodic table and
four units back in mass. It may give off a electron
from a neutron, which thereby becomes a proton and thrusts
the atom one position up in the table while keeping the same
weight. It may give off a *positron*, which is a particle with the
same weight as a electron but a positive charge, and thereby
go one position down in the board while keeping the same weight.
Often, too, a particle is given off with neither charge nor
mass, called the *neutrino*. In most radioactive decay, a
particle of light with shortest wavelength comes out as well.

For although light usually behaves as a wave, it can be looked
on as a particle, the *photon*. We have already said by the way
that a particle of matter can behave not only as a particle, but as a
wave. Down among the atoms, things do not happen in a continious fashion,
but in leaps between positions that are forbidden.
The study of this is called *quantom theory*.

Nor are matter and energy different. Rather, they are essentially the
same, and one can be converted into the other. The relationship between
them is that energy is equal to weight multiplied by the square
of the speed of light.

By shooting particles into nucleuss, physicists have converted
isotopes of one element into isotopes of another. Thus did
they make Uranium into Neptunium and Plutonium, and they have
afterward gone beyond these. The heavier elements are all
highly readioactive and therefore are not found in nature.

Some of the higher isotopes are *unstable*. That is, when a
neutron strikes the nucleus of one, as for an example
Uranium-235, it bursts into lesser nuclei and free
neutrons; the latter can then split more Uranium-235. When
this happens, mass converts into energy. It is not much of the
whole, but nevertheless it is awesome.

With enough strength, lightweight atoms can be made to
fuse. In the sun, through a row of fusion and
radiocativity, four atoms of hydrogen in this wise become
one of helium. Again some weight is lost as energy, and
this is much larger than the energy gotten from a
chemical reaction such as fire.

Today we wield both kind of nuclear in weapons, and
nuclear fission gives us heat and electricity. We hope to
do the same with fusion, which would yield an unlimited
amount of energy for mankind's avantage.

Truly we live in mighty years!

co.raf...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 26, 2019, 12:33:00 AM6/26/19
to
On Wednesday, June 10, 1998 at 5:00:00 PM UTC+10, Rick Harrison wrote:
> The following item shows what English would look like if it
> were purged of its non-Germanic words, and used German-style
> compounds instead of borrowings to express new concepts.
> This recently appeared in the Conlang mailing list.
>
> =====cut here=====
>
> Here is Poul Anderson's essay "Uncleftish Beholding" ("Atomic
> Theory"), reprinted from the revised edition appearing in his
> collection _All One Universe_.
>
>
> For most of its being, mankind did not know what things are made
> of, but could only guess. With the growth of worldken, we began
> to learn, and today we have a beholding of stuff and work that
> watching bears out, both in the workstead and in daily life.
>
> The underlying kinds of stuff are the *firststuffs*, which link
> together in sundry ways to give rise to the rest. Formerly we
> knew of ninety-two firststuffs, from waterstuff, the lightest and
> barest, to ymirstuff, the heaviest. Now we have made more, such
> as aegirstuff and helstuff.
>
> The firststuffs have their being as motes called *unclefts*.
> These are mightly small; one seedweight of waterstuff holds a
> tale of them like unto two followed by twenty-two naughts. Most
> unclefts link together to make what are called *bulkbits*. Thus,
> the waterstuff bulkbit bestands of two waterstuff unclefts, the
> sourstuff bulkbit of two sourstuff unclefts, and so on. (Some
> kinds, such as sunstuff, keep alone; others, such as iron, cling
> together in ices when in the fast standing; and there are yet
> more yokeways.) When unlike clefts link in a bulkbit, they make
> *bindings*. Thus, water is a binding of two waterstuff unclefts
> with one sourstuff uncleft, while a bulkbit of one of the
> forestuffs making up flesh may have a thousand thousand or more
> unclefts of these two firststuffs together with coalstuff and
> chokestuff.
>
> At first is was thought that the uncleft was a hard thing that
> could be split no further; hence the name. Now we know it is made
> up of lesser motes. There is a heavy *kernel* with a forward
> bernstonish lading, and around it one or more light motes with
> backward ladings. The least uncleft is that of ordinary
> waterstuff. Its kernel is a lone forwardladen mote called a
> *firstbit*. Outside it is a backwardladen mote called a
> *bernstonebit*. The firstbit has a heaviness about 1840-fold that
> of the bernstonebit. Early worldken folk thought bernstonebits
> swing around the kernel like the earth around the sun, but now we
> understand they are more like waves or clouds.
>
> In all other unclefts are found other motes as well, about as
> heavy as the firstbit but with no lading, known as *neitherbits*.
> We know a kind of waterstuff with one neitherbit in the kernel
> along with the firstbit; another kind has two neitherbits. Both
> kinds are seldom.
>
> The next greatest firststuff is sunstuff, which has two firstbits
> and two bernstonebits. The everyday sort also has two neitherbits
> in the kernel. If there are more or less, the uncleft will soon
> break asunder. More about this later.
>
> The third firststuff is stonestuff, with three firstbits, three
> bernstonebits, and its own share of neitherbits. And so it goes,
> on through such everyday stuffs as coalstuff (six firstbits) or
> iron (26) to ones more lately found. Ymirstuff (92) was the last
> until men began to make some higher still.
>
> this happens, weight shifts into work. It is not much of the
> whole, but nevertheless it is awesome.
>
> With enough strength, lightweight unclefts can be made to
> togethermelt. In the sun, through a row of strikings and
> lightrottings, four unclefts of waterstuff in this wise become
> one of sunstuff. Again some weight is lost as work, and again
> this is greatly big when set beside the work gotten from a
> minglingish doing such as fire.
>
> Today we wield both kind of uncleftish doings in weapons, and
> kernelish splitting gives us heat and bernstoneness. We hope to
> do likewise with togethermelting, which would yield an unhemmed
> wellspring of work for mankindish goodgain.
>
> Soothly we live in mighty years!

> killthyselfstuff is a very popular thing to do with the fellow kids

charlesj...@gmail.com

unread,
May 8, 2020, 7:52:04 PM5/8/20
to
Same
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages