HOW WORDS MOVE.
HOW MEANINGS MUTATE.

Merriam-Webster derives figūra from fig-, a variant stem of fingere, plus -ūra.

A result or product of shaping becomes form, likeness, and representation.

Merriam-Webster summarizes English chthonic directly from Greek chthon-, chthōn, while American Heritage supplies Greek khthonios as the immediate adjective.

Greek earth vocabulary supplies the English underworld adjective under either segmentation.

American Heritage summarizes English humiliate from Late Latin humiliāre and the stem humiliāt-, without promoting the participle as a separate node.

To humble or make low develops into causing loss of pride, dignity, or self-respect.

On the inherited analysis, Gothic h and the hat- stem continue the Germanic forms Orel writes with x, while the Gothic class-III paradigm is compared with the reconstructed *xatēnan ~ *xatōjanan alternation.

The Germanic weak-verb family meaning hate continues in the two surviving Gothic participles, one of which is substantivized as enemies.

Sturtevant analyzes hatan beside hatjan through a specifically Gothic secondary association with the fijan/fian pattern; Braune independently records fluctuation between class III and class I.

The two Gothic hate paradigms overlap semantically and morphologically without proving that every construction or sense was identical.

The proposed analysis connects the Germanic fi(j)- verb to a laryngeal-bearing Indo-European base through prehistoric present-stem remodeling; intermediate formal analyses vary and are not presented as written stages.

A proposed harm, blame, suffering, or hostility field develops toward the Germanic verb hate, but the original semantic center is not uniquely recoverable.

Koch compares Middle Irish cais with Proto-Celtic *katsi-. The reviewed evidence does not publish a complete, dated chain of Goidelic sound changes, so no missing intermediate forms are invented.

The attested Irish entry carries both love and hate readings. The reconstruction does not identify which reading is older or prove that the opposition was already present in Proto-Celtic.

Koch analyzes *katsi- from *kad-t/si-. The displayed consonant cluster and affricate outcome follow that published reconstruction rather than an independently observed sound record.

A proposed suffixal formation is assigned to the Celtic love and hatred field; no single direction of semantic development is recovered.

The proposed *kad-t/si- formation is analyzed from the base *kad- with suffixal material.

The wider comparison links semantically difficult fields including love, hatred, care, grief, and enmity; the graph preserves the comparison without declaring a single original meaning.

Old Saxon h continues the Germanic fricative represented by Orel as x, while the attested ō-class paradigm is compared with reconstructed weak-verb alternatives. Orel prints *xatēnan ~ *xatōjanan; Köbler prints *hatōn.

The inherited Germanic hostility verb continues as Old Saxon hate or, in lexicographic description, pursue. The evidence does not establish pursuit as the one earlier or original meaning.

Under Köbler's analysis, the normalized Old Saxon h-ō-t-i frame continues a Germanic *hw-ō-t-j- adjective. The five written Old Saxon surfaces vary between ho- and huo- and across inflectional endings; the edge does not assign one exact phonetic date to those spellings.

A reconstructed hostile or threatening adjective continues in Heliand contexts of hostile minds and hostile intent. The branch evidence does not prove that sharpened or incited was the adjective's consciously felt meaning.

The adjective in *-ja- is compared with the long-vowel Germanic noun *hwōtō. The located entry does not independently settle whether the adjective derives from the noun, the noun from a related verb, or both from a shared base.

The compared noun means threat while the adjective means hostile or enraged. The graph preserves the semantic proximity without converting it into one documented derivational event.

Köbler compares the Germanic hwōt- formation with Pokorny's labiovelar *kʷē̆d- / *kʷō̆d- complex; the UT page independently displays reflexes with Germanic hw- and meanings sharpen, whet, and incite.

A physical field of boring, pricking, or stabbing develops in Germanic comparanda toward sharpness, whetting, incitement, and threat. The exact path to the Old Saxon hostile adjective remains proposed.

UT places Old Saxon hōti in the same reflex table as hatōn, heti, and the wider Germanic hate family. The atlas crosswalks that classification to its reviewed *hatiz- node without claiming an observed Proto-Germanic token.

The hostile or inimical adjective is grouped with hate, displeasure, enmity, anger, and persecution. Köbler's distinct *hwōtja- analysis prevents this semantic grouping from being treated as a settled single parent.

Under the proposed comparison, the palatal stop is represented by Greek k, while the long-vowel pattern appears as Ionic-Attic η beside Doric ā in κᾶδος. The exact Proto-Hellenic sequence and every laryngeal or suffixal step are reconstructed rather than attested.

The Greek care, anxiety, grief, mourning, and funeral field is compared with a wider formation that also contains hostility and hatred words. The edge does not make every branch sense descend from one recoverable emotional scene.

American Heritage compares Germanic *frī- with Indo-European *prī-. The initial Germanic f corresponds to the older labial stop under the comparative analysis; the exact intermediate morphology is not promoted as attested.

The reconstructed like, love, or friendliness field is compared across Indo-European, but no one original institution of friendship or freedom is recovered.