However we use and abuse Latin, on the whole, for its explanatory power in relation to English rather than for its own sake as a medium of communication.
I'd have to not agree with you. I was not trying to regulate the usage of or disparage the non-word-hood of orientate. I was just trying to show what the facts are in Latin, and what they are in English. Part of any explanation of a word's history, especially a loanword like orient, involves the language it was taken from. Once taken over though, it belongs to the borrowing language. I just pointed out that the word is different from others taken over from Latin, in that once it got into English it mutated in such a way that, while it appeared to be following the rules of Latin grammar, it was in fact breaking them. This is a common enough occurence, e.g., when people write virii instead of viruses. From a purely descriptive POV, both plurals exist in English, along with some others, and from a purely descriptive POV, no plural for the word virus exists in Latin. This has nothing to do with Latin's morbidity. It's just another amusing story in the history of English. I'm sorry if I seemed to imply that using orientate is somehow wrong. I don't think it is, nor would I try to explain its incorrect state by recourse to Latin grammar.
In the end, knowledge of it will quietly melt and wither away with the inevitable effluxion of time ..
Yes, as it will with all languages, English included, but that doesn't stop us from speaking it at the moment, or using it to explain things.
