*SET-U

PERMANENT DISPUTE RECORD

ALL DISPUTES ↗
CLAIM / COUNTERCLAIM / LIMITRECORD 518

DISPUTE
RECORD.

One scholarly question. Every attached source. The present editorial state, without pretending the last word has been written.

resolvedprobable

Was vijand historically a present participle?

Yes at the inherited formation level. EWN calls it an early independently used present participle, ONW calls it originally the present participle of the lost corresponding verb, and Kroonen reconstructs *fi(j)and-.

WORD UNDER REVIEWDISPUTE 518

vijand

/ˈvɛijɑnt/ · Dutch masculine noun

The ordinary Dutch noun for an enemy or opponent descends through Middle Dutch viant or vient and Old Dutch fīunt or fīant from a Germanic present-participial formation: literally the hating one. ONW counts twenty-six Old Dutch records and says the corresponding hate verb is no longer known in Dutch; VMNW counts 407 thirteenth-century records across enemy, Devil, and monster senses. Several Dutch etymologists propose that the medieval use for the Devil helped preserve the word’s full ending, unlike vriend, but they mark that explanation as possible or probable rather than demonstrated. The earliest Old Dutch Devil reading is itself textually disputed, and the Wachtendonck Psalms witnesses are later copies, not directly inspected tenth-century objects.

01

DIRECT CLAIM EVIDENCE

3 SOURCES WITH A STANCE

A citation is not a vote. Each record says whether the work supports, challenges, contradicts, or contextualizes the position—and identifies the exact locus used.

SOURCE 03supportshistorical dictionary

Oudnederlands Woordenboek — fīunt

Independently confirms the participial origin in the Old Dutch entry.

Morphology: originally present participle of the corresponding lost verb
AUTHOR / EDITOR
Instituut voor de Nederlandse Taal editorial team
YEAR
2009
PUBLISHER
Instituut voor de Nederlandse Taal
02 / EDITORIAL STATE

THE CURRENT RECORD IS RESOLVED.

CONFIDENCE
probable
STATUS
resolved
LEGACY SOURCE SUMMARY
Independent Dutch and Proto-Germanic authorities converge on the analysis, while the parent form remains reconstructed.
RESOLUTION NOTE

The dossier labels the parent with an asterisk and states literal one-who-hates as a word-formation analysis, not an attested Dutch sentence.