Uncleftish Beholding: An Uploosening of English Cleanness (2018)
words.usask.ca
words.usask.ca
This gives me the feeling of getting things “standardly backwards”, just like semiconductors described in terms of negatively charged, positive-mass electrons moving in one direction rather than positive-charge negative-mass ‘holes’ moving in the opposite direction. It’s not that English lacked words for these concepts and that it imported them integrally meanings et al.
That isn’t what’s happening at all. New concepts are arising as our scientific understanding expands. As a consequence, a vacancy in the lexicon is needed to succinctly and unambiguously address these new concepts. Loan words are a very convenient manner of getting these new ‘labels’ we need: they’re not already present in our language so they do not risk causing ambiguity, and by the same token probably have less ancillary baggage and implications involved. Foreign words are thus phonetically stolen wholesale but conceptually are probably quite warped, or at least made far more precise and specific than they are for speakers of the language from which the word was ‘borrowed’ (just as in English itself, vague terms such as ‘mass’, ‘work’, and ‘force’ were given very precise technical meanings to enable succinct but accurate conversation).
Likewise with other technical jargon like average (cut: schnitt, snit, etc) and density (mass-fill). In the end though it's much easier to switch to English, because everyone speaks it nowadays.
While "dog" does go back to Old English, it's actually of unknown origin and you won't find it in any other Germanic languages except those that borrowed it from English. It displaced the ancestral Germanic word "hound" which has taken on a more specialized meaning in English.
In general linguistic conservatism is a good idea simply because you want to think about the topic, not the words themselves (though in specific there are words with changing). But reading, say, Ulysses is exhausting!
soldier => warfighter
legislator => lawmaker.
(the prof who made the game of Life would now and then play a game where one must say what one would like to in just words that have no more than one "sound" to them.)"cleave" is of course alive and well but not everyone realizes "cleft" is a past participle of "cleave". "cleaved" is much more common as a verb where I'm from and "cleave" is not a very common verb to begin with.
I think that the test is actually better for people who do not recognize any of the non-latin roots. That way, they have to deduce everything from the context, which is indeed possible.