Michael Everson everson at
Wed Jan 11 19:39:22 CET 2012

On 11 Jan 2012, at 17:30, Sean B. Palmer wrote:

> <blockquote lang="en">
> <p>Outside it is a backwardladen mote called a <em>bernstonebit</em>.
> 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.
> </blockquote>
> So, how can we test for coherence and established principles? Well, do we know that the segment above is Anglish? Yes.


> Is there doubt? Wherein does the doubt subsist, if there is any; what are its sundry qualities and lineaments?

Yes, it is a cleanspeech, an English without romance words. Is every cleanspeech Anglish? Is that segment Anglish? In what way? Is it just like your 1878 source? Is your 2009 source the same entity? Or is every "Anglish" an ad-hoc preparation?

> How were you able to concoct the list of sites that have variants of Anglish to submit them to me as examples of possible incoherence?

They were listed at the bottom of

> Why did you choose those ones in particular, if you did not think they were Anglish?

I *don't* know that they are all Anglish. One of them identifies as such. 

> Why is the concept regarded as notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, when Kalusa wasn't?

That article is not about "Anglish". It is about "Anglo-Saxon linguistic purism". Isn't "Anglish" just one instantiation of one such purism? Or is it a coherent entity used by many people, all stemming from Barnes 1878?

Michael Everson *

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list