>>117370>>117371There is one word coined by a Scot that comes to mind and that's haecceity, also known as thisness. It's what distinguishes a specific thing as a distinct, particular entity. There are other fairly specific loans like eudaimonia or defenestrate, and of those that are trivia-tier I've come across qualtagh, that one's pretty unique. I don't think English lost these per se, it's that a lot of what you see touted around as these mega-specific abstract things are often a product of writing, either popularized by it or simply not used in regular speech anyways, and the English language spent a very long time being marginalized in favor of Latin and French, whose impact will be felt for even longer. And really, English speakers mostly prefer to borrow words over calquing them, that too contributes to the whole shebang.
The specificity of commonplace vocabulary is generally very underrated and you won't see it appear on any funny lists, but English's phrasal verbs in particular are a stupidly productive way to narrow down or diversify meanings. Get, get in, get out, get up, get down, get by, get on, get off, get along, get at, get away, get back, get over, get across, get around, get through, not to mention get as an auxiliary, at this point I'm sure you get the idea. It's important to highlight the fact that multi-word expressions are lexical items too and just as valid as individual ones, which is what most of these would be in a different language.
As for verbosity itself, it comes and goes, Aristophanes was making fun of it all the way back in 391 BC with his Lopadotemachoselacho
galeokranioleipsano
drimhypotrimmatosi
lphiokarabomelitoka
takechymenokichlepi
kossyphophattoperis
teralektryonoptekep
halliokigklopeleiol
agoiosiraiobaphetra
ganopterygon. It's not unprecedented.
>>117376Heheheh