HOW WORDS MOVE.
HOW MEANINGS MUTATE.

CHRONOLOGYArabic-to-Romance chess contact before the Middle English borrowing.

CONFIDENCE NOTEMerriam-Webster explicitly leaves direct Arabic transmission versus Spanish jaque mediation unresolved.

CHRONOLOGYMedieval Arabic-to-Romance chess transmission.

CONFIDENCE NOTEMerriam-Webster routes the word through šāh; Encyclopaedia Iranica groups English chess with descendants of the traveling game-name šatranj.

CHRONOLOGYPersian and Arabic chess terminology passes through French before English.

CONFIDENCE NOTEThe Persian helpless analysis is favored, but the Arabic “has died” analysis remains a recorded competitor.

CHRONOLOGYEarly Islamic chess vocabulary.

CONFIDENCE NOTEThe alternative reading as native Arabic māt “has died” is explicitly preserved as a dispute.

CHRONOLOGYOld to Middle Persian.

CONFIDENCE NOTEThe source supplies the Old Persian comparison but not a complete paradigm.

CHRONOLOGYIndia to Sasanian Persia in or around the sixth century.

CONFIDENCE NOTEIranica says the origin is obscure but places the first certain Sanskrit mention and Persian introduction in the sixth century.

CHRONOLOGYEnglish is recorded from 1655; Dutch maritime diffusion belongs to the seventeenth century.

CONFIDENCE NOTEWALS describes Dutch-mediated European diffusion, while Merriam-Webster compresses the etymology to borrowing from Xiamen Chinese. The Dutch stage is therefore shown but disputed.

CHRONOLOGYOld Chinese reconstruction to the historically documented Southern Min form.

CONFIDENCE NOTEWALS establishes the Min Nan te family; Baxter and Sagart establish the reviewed Old Chinese reconstruction. The Min branch is not falsely routed through the later Middle Chinese *drae reading.

CHRONOLOGYFirst known use of the modern English culinary sense: 1984.

CONFIDENCE NOTEMerriam-Webster names Hindi and Urdu among several source-language forms without selecting a single donor; the displayed Hindustani stage is representative rather than exclusive.

CHRONOLOGYOverland transmission preceded the modern English borrowing; individual regional dates vary.

CONFIDENCE NOTEWALS supports a broad overland cha/chai pattern, and Merriam-Webster lists multiple intermediate language forms. This edge represents the family route, not a claim of direct Hindi–Mandarin contact.

CHRONOLOGYMiddle Chinese to modern Mandarin.

CONFIDENCE NOTEThe modern form is attested, while the Middle Chinese phonological value is reconstructed.

CHRONOLOGYOld Chinese to Middle Chinese.

CONFIDENCE NOTEBoth phonological stages are scholarly reconstructions even though the character and lexical tradition are historically attested.

CHRONOLOGYChinese to Persian overland transmission; Persian awareness is reported by the 11th century.

CONFIDENCE NOTEEncyclopaedia Iranica gives the Chinese derivation but says the date and mechanism of Persian adoption remain uncertain.

CHRONOLOGYProto-Germanic to Old English.

CONFIDENCE NOTEThe Germanic and Old English forms are given, while this edge summarizes multiple regular developments rather than one spelling substitution.

CHRONOLOGYProto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic.

CONFIDENCE NOTEBoth references connect the Germanic and wider Indo-European numeral family; notation varies between *deḱm̥ and *dekm̥.

CHRONOLOGYProto-Indo-European prehistory to attested Ancient Greek.

CONFIDENCE NOTEThe Greek form and polysemy are attested; the Indo-European ancestor is reconstructed by cross-branch comparison.

CHRONOLOGYProto-Germanic prehistory to Old High German records from the tenth century.

CONFIDENCE NOTEThe Old High German form is attested; the Germanic parent is reconstructed from comparative morphology.

CHRONOLOGYProto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic prehistory.

CONFIDENCE NOTEThe morphological comparison is published, but the parent root is reconstructed rather than attested.

CHRONOLOGYProto-Germanic prehistory to Middle Dutch.

CONFIDENCE NOTEThe Dutch form is attested; the Proto-Germanic parent and exact sound stages are comparative reconstructions.

CHRONOLOGYProto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic prehistory.

CONFIDENCE NOTEThe cross-branch comparison is strong, while both parent forms are reconstructed.

CHRONOLOGYProto-Germanic prehistory to the fourth-century Gothic translation tradition and early-sixth-century manuscript.

CONFIDENCE NOTEThe inflectional alternation is manuscript-attested; the Proto-Germanic parent and phonological staging are reconstructed.

CHRONOLOGYProto-Germanic prehistory to the Old High German textual period.

CONFIDENCE NOTEThe Old High German form is attested; its Proto-Germanic parent and precise phonological staging are comparative reconstructions.

CHRONOLOGYProto-Finnic prehistory to attested Finnish.

CONFIDENCE NOTEThe Finnish form is attested and the Proto-Finnic form is comparative reconstruction.

CHRONOLOGYThe English record is attested by 1926.

CONFIDENCE NOTEThe dictionary names both isiXhosa and isiZulu; the dossier uses isiZulu as one representative route while the canonical graph preserves isiXhosa as a parallel competing donor.