SCHOLARLY DISPUTE LEDGER
COVERAGE LEDGER ↗When scholarship disagrees, SET-U preserves the disagreement. Confidence is graded. Alternatives stay separate. Unknown remains a valid result.
LIVE SCHOLARLY QUESTIONS
These records have not been flattened into a single preferred story. The graph may still show a proposed edge, but its uncertainty remains explicit.
The traditional *leǵ- reconstruction remains widely represented, while published scholarship argues that the gather or collect root began with *s. The graph preserves both analyses.
Not necessarily. The king or prince value is secure for the element, but scholarship distinguishes names where it is determinative from analyses in which it is semantically bleached or intensifying. Each host therefore requires its own compositional claim.
The reviewed source allows either Old English or Anglo-French transmission from Latin and does not choose between them.
No. The form is a comparative reconstruction. Optional j notation, branch vowels, and the relation of written historical variants require analysis rather than direct Proto-Germanic observation.
No. The Germanic verb and lexicalized agent formation are firmer than the proposed Indo-European comparison, whose formal intermediates and semantic unity remain reconstructive.
No unique event is known. Cross-branch evidence places it before the recorded daughter languages, but no text records the prehistoric lexicalization moment.
Not completely. Comparative forms support the morphology, but no recording or written Proto-Germanic paradigm survives.
No. The formation predates the daughter-language records and is already nominal in the earliest High German evidence.
The comparison is published on the shared friend-family route but remains proposed and less secure than the Germanic formation.
The sources establish the sense across German and Nordic evidence but do not recover one complete prehistoric semantic tree.
Unresolved. DWB argues for hostile pursuit or persecution as the original center; Duden glosses the origin as suffering, sorrow, and resentment; DWDS foregrounds hostile disposition, resentment, and enmity.
The noun is reconstructed, and published notation reflects stem alternation and analytical choices. Koch prints *hataz ~ *hatiz- while Merriam-Webster foregrounds *hatiz-.
Only as a qualified proposal. Formal correspondence is published, but the semantic chain through grief, care, pain, pursuit, and hatred is not transparent.
No. They belong to a disputed wider comparison. Middle Irish cais carries a striking love-and-hatred field, but that does not make German Liebe an ancestor or cognate of Hass.
Not from the reviewed sources. The institutional dictionaries reach the Nahuatl word and its historical witnesses but do not establish a deeper lexical ancestor.
The final node remains an explicit research boundary.
The reviewed reports differ. Etymonline gives an early-thirteenth-century algorism; Merriam-Webster gives a fourteenth-century first-known-use horizon.
Both remain visible pending inspection and reconciliation of the underlying medieval objects.
The sources preserve both channels. Merriam-Webster names Middle French and Medieval Latin; Etymonline emphasizes Old French from Medieval Latin.
The linear dossier follows French while the canonical graph retains the already-cited direct Medieval Latin parent of the shared Middle English node.
The reviewed source reports differ. Etymonline gives mid-thirteenth-century arsmetike; Merriam-Webster gives a fifteenth-century first-known-use horizon.
Both reports remain visible pending direct inspection and reconciliation of their underlying objects.
The references use different levels and notations: Merriam-Webster derives the Greek base through *h₂rei-, while Etymonline prints an expanded *erei-dhmo- formation tied to *re-.
The linear route uses *h₂rei- and explicitly records the competing expanded formation.
No. An early Choctaw *bayok is plausible and accepted in a major handbook, but later bayuk is not securely attested and contraction to bók was conjectural.
The French edge is established, the Choctaw edge proposed, and the asterisk remains visible.
The historical base is Middle English trouth or trouthe, where the modern truth and troth spellings were not yet cleanly separated; mapping it to only one modern headword overstates the evidence.
Dharug bumarin and a Dharawal bou-mar-rang form are published candidates, but the Australian National Dictionary Centre says the exact source language remains uncertain.
The canonical graph contains both proposed routes and the dossier ends at an uncertainty boundary.
No. American Heritage offers a possible chain through a fettered person, fetter, Latin restraint collar, and Greek ox hide; Oxford labels the origin unknown.
Every later edge can be inspected without upgrading the initial proposed borrowing.
The sources publish broad Germanic comparanda, including Old High German brūt, but this dossier does not yet have a reviewed source that warrants one reconstructed parent.
The trail ends at an explicit cognate horizon rather than importing an uncited reconstruction.
Not certainly. eDIL tentatively translates "mo chais is cais 'na agaid" as "my love ... is met by hatred(?)" and prints a question mark on the second reading.
eDIL groups them in one headword but does not, by that editorial act alone, settle the full historical relationship among every love and hate occurrence.
No reviewed source establishes one direction. The citations show an opposition; they do not date a semantic transition.
Koch publishes the comparison, but the reviewed materials do not expose a complete dated Goidelic derivation or independent consensus sufficient to mark the edge established.
No. It is a published proposal, not an attested sequence, and the wider cross-branch set remains semantically disputed.
No. The Celtic–Germanic comparison is serious enough to display, but the graph keeps it as a context link rather than a genealogical edge because formal and semantic acceptance remain unsettled.
Not established here. eDIL supplies located citations but the underlying objects and dates were not normalized or directly inspected for an earliest-use audit.
Not directly recoverable from the reviewed evidence. Written forms and variants do not constitute recorded audio or a complete phonological reconstruction.
Not securely. The traditional analysis is morphologically and semantically irregular; an alternative links Latin calculus and Greek stone words through a possible shared substrate source.
The calculator-to-calculare-to-calculus chain is established, but the traditional calculus-to-calx derivation is proposed. A possible shared Mediterranean substrate source remains a competing route.
No. Festus accepted the traditional limestone derivation, but the phonology and meanings are problematic. The edge remains proposed.
Yes, as a proposal. Beekes' substrate diagnostics for Greek variants motivate a possible common source, but no form is securely reconstructed.
The graph preserves both published analyses. The newer Merriam-Webster route uses *(s)kend- and explains candēre through a zero-grade stative formation; the prior *kand- route remains proposed.
The whitened toga is historical and lexical. Reading it as a guaranteed moral-purity claim goes beyond what the word formation alone proves.
No. The Latin candēre family is attested, but its deeper reconstructed root and cognate set remain analysis-dependent.
French candeur is a published route, while Merriam-Webster describes the English borrowing as French and Latin. Direct learned Latin influence therefore remains visible.
The modern culinary sense strongly points toward South Asian usage, but Merriam-Webster lists Turkish, Russian, Persian, Hindi, and Urdu source forms without selecting one unique donor.
It is the final reviewed reconstruction in this dossier, not a declaration that no deeper hypothesis exists. No unique deeper form is promoted until a competing analysis is encoded with direct evidence.
The Arabic source is well supported, but Merriam-Webster leaves direct borrowing versus mediation through Spanish jaque unresolved.
That is a longstanding Arabic analysis, but Merriam-Webster and Encyclopaedia Iranica favor a Persian loan meaning left, helpless, broken, or paralyzed.
Merriam-Webster routes the French forms through the king-call šāh; Encyclopaedia Iranica groups English chess with descendants of the Indian-Persian-Arabic game-name caturaṅga / čatrang / šatranj.
WALS gives a Cantonese cha route through Macao; Infopédia labels the source Mandarin chá. The shared cha-type Chinese family is secure, but the immediate variety label is not unanimous.
The graph follows the more historically specific Macao–Cantonese route at probable confidence and cites the challenge on the edge.
They converge on Latin collēctus / colligere, but the prayer noun may refer specifically to a congregation’s gathering place; the immediate motivation is qualified as “perhaps.”
Both analyses are published. Merriam-Webster presents com- plus scire, while American Heritage labels com- intensive; the dossier keeps the edge probable rather than forcing one exclusive gloss.
No. The *skei- comparison is published, but the exact formation of Latin scīre and the semantic bridge from separating to knowing remain disputed.
No. The traditional *leǵ- analysis remains widely represented, while a published *sleǵ- reconstruction challenges the initial consonant and cautions against a simple semantic tale.
French and Italian stages are both central in reference accounts; a single linear donor route can overstate the surviving evidence.
Merriam-Webster reports first known use in 1987; Etymonline reports the word by January 1992 and quotes an August 1992 explanation.
1987 is retained as the earlier lexicographic horizon; the later published report remains visible pending direct primary-object review.
Not from the reviewed evidence. Merriam-Webster calls the proposed deeper base uncertain and a Lithuanian comparison doubtful; Etymonline likewise stops at uncertain Greek prehistory.
The icon branch ends at a separate cited knowledge boundary.
Etymonline gives the decade; Merriam-Webster gives 1579. These are compatible levels of precision, not proof of one first utterance.
SET-U retains the exact institutional report while labeling the evidence as source-reported rather than directly inspected.
Not from the reviewed evidence. Etymonline publishes *meue- for the movement root, but this dossier does not promote an older form without specialist comparative review.
The final node is an explicit knowledge boundary.
Merriam-Webster analyzes etymologic from Latin etymologicus and etymological as etymologic + -al; Etymonline analyzes etymology + -ical.
The canonical dossier uses the explicit Latin-adjective route while the graph exposes the competing internal derivation.
The reports differ slightly: Merriam-Webster gives 1588 and Etymonline gives the 1590s. Neither date proves the word was coined then.
Both reports and the evidence limit remain visible pending direct witness inspection.
Merriam-Webster reports 1604; Etymonline reports the 1630s. These are different source horizons, not necessarily irreconcilable claims about the same underlying object.
The timeline spans both and discloses that no primary token was inspected.
No. It is a serious published reconstruction, but the exact morphology and wider family are analyzed differently by scholars.
The modern dictionary records the figurative sense, but the reviewed evidence does not date one secure semantic pivot.
The semantic change remains explicit while its chronology stays unresolved.
Not necessarily. OED notes that especially in early Mercian, some apparently mutated stems may instead have been re-formed after the present participle of fēon.
No. The Germanic verb and lexicalized agent formation are firmer than the proposed Indo-European comparison, whose formal intermediates and semantic unity remain reconstructive.
No unique event is established. OED explains a recurring ultimate-enemy use shaped by Latin hostis and the adversary meaning behind satan, but does not identify one inventor or first metaphorical moment.
Only as a qualified modern proposal. Kroonen publishes the route; Hellquist records a historically different deeper comparison, and neither recovers a written ancestral token or unique original semantic scene.
No. *fi(j)and- and *fi(j)ēn- are normalized comparative reconstructions; optional j, branch vowels, and the timing of lexicalization remain analytical.
No separate lexeme is supported, but the formal history remains analytical. Project Wulfila redirects fian to fijan, Streitberg groups j-bearing and j-less forms, and Sturtevant discusses loss of j in the sequence.
Both categories exist historically and synchronically. Ayora Estevan derives the noun from a Proto-Germanic lexicalized present participle, then shows Gothic still using fi(j)ands as the productive participle one who hates. Token-level syntax and inflection sometimes distinguish them; many surface forms do not.
No. Galatians 4:16 nominative fijands functions as the noun enemy, Romans 11:28 accusative fijandans is analyzed as a participle, and Romans 12:9 fiandans takes an accusative object. Twenty-one other corpus tokens remain explicitly lexically and morphosyntactically ambiguous.
Only as a proposal. The Germanic *fi(j)ēn- comparison is stronger than the deeper route; the exact intermediate morphology and semantic unity of harm, blame, suffering, and hate remain reconstructive.
They overlap, but the surviving corpus does not prove identity. In Luke 1 fijandam supplies enemies and hatandane those hating; in Luke 6 hatandans supplies enemies and fijandam those hating. Sturtevant uses their association in a formal argument without proving interchangeable semantics everywhere.
No single category covers the evidence. Ayora Estevan derives the enemy noun from a Proto-Germanic lexicalized participle while also showing that Gothic retained productive present-participial uses of the same formation.
No. The noun and productive participle share surface inflection. Case, complementation, agreement, and context resolve some passages, but Project Wulfila leaves 21 candidates lexically and morphosyntactically ambiguous.
The formal relationship was available because the verb and productive participle survived, but inherited lexicalization means ordinary noun use need not have been compositionally reanalyzed on every occasion.
Only through the proposed deeper analysis of its Germanic verb base. The lexicalized participle-to-verb relation is stronger than the Indo-European route, whose intermediate morphology and semantic unity remain reconstructive.
No. Luke 1:71 and 6:27 show that fijan and hatan can exchange the work of enemies and those hating, but those two contextual alignments do not determine every other fijand- token.
Not established by the inspected public evidence. Gammeldansk Ordbog reports fiende as known since 1100–1300 but exposes no exact first token on the entry page.
No. ODS preserves an older comparison with Sanskrit pīyati, while modern comparative work gives a reconstructed route. Neither source licenses a historical borrowing or direct line.
No. The records show overlapping spellings, syllable patterns, and editorial judgments rather than one recoverable switch.
Only as a qualified modern proposal. The Germanic noun-and-verb relationship is firmer than the displayed Indo-European route.
Three is the count in the reviewed public Lexicon Poeticum surface and matches the three locations in Cleasby and Fritzner, but it is not presented as a census of every lost or surviving utterance.
Not established here. The reviewed sources supply poem and stanza locations but no directly inspected manuscript object, exact composition date, or uncontested first-use year.
No exact date or complete phonetic sequence is established. Zoëga calls fía the early form and ONP cross-references it, which supports a historical surface relation but not a point event.
No. Cleasby calls the word obsolete from a nineteenth-century lexicographic perspective, but the reviewed record does not identify a last speaker or extinction year.
Not completely. Vowel quantity, optional glide, contraction, surface variation, and poetic normalization belong to historical analysis rather than recorded audio.
Only as a qualified modern proposal. The Germanic comparison is firmer than the displayed Indo-European route.
Only as a qualified modern proposal. The Germanic noun-and-verb relation is firmer than the displayed Indo-European route.
No. *fi(j)and- and *fi(j)ēn- are normalized comparative reconstructions; optional j, branch vowels, and the moment the agent became an ordinary noun remain analytical.
No. The historical dictionary gives a relative post-Christian chronology, while ONP and the poetic corpus show overlapping ordinary and supernatural uses rather than one recoverable coinage moment.
Not demonstrably. Its history is participial, but OED says it inflects as a strong masculine agent noun and the textual record uses it as an ordinary noun.
Not completely. OED reconstructs vowel contraction and formal variation, but no recording or written Proto-Germanic paradigm survives.
It is a published Indo-European comparison, not direct attestation. The Germanic and Old English stages are firmer than the deepest displayed root.
No. The formation predates the daughter-language records, while lexicalization is inferred from already-established nouns in those languages.
Cleasby–Vigfússon and Fritzner propose social explanations involving strong family bonds and mutual obligation, but the textual distribution does not uniquely prove one causal event.
ONP files the phrase under friend but flags possible kin sense 3; Cleasby–Vigfússon treats it as a possible alliterative exception. The citation does not force one clean answer.
No. The displayed IPA is a normalized scholarly approximation; manuscript spelling and comparative phonology cannot reproduce one recorded medieval voice.
Not completely. Comparative evidence supports the nd-participial morphology, but no written paradigm or recording survives.
The inherited agent formation and daughter-language distributions do not recover one securely dated semantic split. Old Norse evidence preserves overlap rather than a single transition record.
The comparison is published through the shared friend-family route but remains proposed and less secure than the Germanic participial formation.
Not demonstrably. OED classifies the word as a strong masculine nd-agent noun, and Bosworth–Toller labels the headword a masculine noun even while preserving its participial history.
No. The displayed IPA is a normalized scholarly approximation across written dialect evidence, not one recorded Old English voice.
The deep comparison is published by American Heritage but remains proposed and less secure than the Germanic participial formation.
No. The local text says Heorot was filled with freondum, but the manuscript alone does not recover each referent’s exact social relationship or a modern intimacy category.
Bosworth–Toller labels the full FEÓGAN entry strong, but labels linked contracted feón weak and contracted. The displayed past forms in -de also require grammatical explanation. The dossier preserves the source-level tension rather than silently harmonizing it.
No. The Germanic verb comparison is firmer than the proposed Indo-European analysis, whose formal intermediates and semantic unity remain reconstructive.
The reviewed evidence does not establish one last-use date or a complete Middle English continuation. The trail therefore stops at the Old English written record instead of inventing an extinction year.
No. The Germanic verb and lexicalized agent formation are firmer than the proposed Indo-European comparison, whose formal intermediates and semantic unity remain reconstructive.
Not necessarily. OED notes that especially in early Mercian, some apparently mutated stems may instead have been re-formed after the present participle of fēon.
No. AWB says the d likely begins diuuil and treats dfiunt as probably corrupt; the Epinal form dfiant does not remove the uncertainty.
Only as a qualified modern proposal. The Germanic noun-and-verb relation is firmer than the displayed Indo-European route.
No. *fi(j)and- and *fi(j)ēn- are normalized comparative reconstructions; optional j, branch vowels, and the moment the agent became an ordinary noun remain analytical.
No. ONW reports that most editions read fiunt, Heyne proposed an error for diufil, both can render Latin diabolus, and the initial D has competing analyses.
Only as a qualified proposal. The Germanic noun-and-verb relationship is firmer than the displayed Indo-European route, whose notation and semantic framing vary.
Not established here. AWB supplies a bounded manuscript horizon and edition locators but no single inspected first object or exact year.
Unknown, and it is not merged here. AWB places it in a separate article and says it is not interpreted.
Not completely. Optional j, vowel quantity, stem remodeling, and daughter inflection belong to comparative analysis rather than a recorded transition.
Only as a qualified modern proposal. The Germanic comparison is firmer than the displayed Indo-European route.
No. The dictionary bounds surviving evidence; it does not identify one extinction event, last speaker, or exact loss date.
No. American Heritage labels the origin unknown; the Middle English Dictionary marks *gyrela and a gierela garment comparison as uncertain.
Both proposals remain graph-only and end at separate evidence boundaries.
The reconstruction is supported by Germanic, Italic, and Slavic evidence but is limited to a western set of Indo-European branches.
Old Norse gestr may have reinforced the Middle English initial g, but the English word is fundamentally inherited from Old English and Germanic.
Not beyond dispute. DWB calls it original and Duden independently notes pursue, but the surviving examples, the exact weak-verb reconstruction, and the deeper comparison do not recover one prehistoric scene with certainty.
The Germanic weak-verb family is grouped with the *hatiz- noun base, but the exact historical formation and direction are reconstructed rather than directly witnessed in German.
The comparative verb family is secure, but its notation and subclass are not singular. Orel prints the alternatives; Merriam-Webster foregrounds *hatōjan- for the related inherited verb formation.
No. Duden analyzes hetzen as a causative formation related to hassen—historically make hate or bring to hostile pursuit—while the modern verbs have distinct forms and ordinary meanings.
Only as a qualified proposal. Formal correspondence is published, but grief, pain, care, mourning, pursuit, and hatred do not form one transparent semantic sequence.
No single event is established. DWB describes a contrast between hostile deeds and a more muted hostile disposition, while historical and modern examples show overlapping contextual ranges.
Probably. Zoëga states damage or destroy; Fritzner supplies poetic examples under damage, spoil, or destroy; the poetic concordance translates records with damage and destruction.
Not established. Cleasby and Vigfússon propose that the poetic dative shun sense was probably original, then immediately say hatta with double t may be the better reading.
Not securely. Cleasby treats the dative phrase as spend gold, ONP has a separate prose contempt-for-gold record, and the poetic reading itself is questioned.
Not established. It is an early directly inspected object, but the review did not compare every manuscript witness, poetic attribution, variant, or dating claim.
The inherited verb family is secure enough for comparison, but reconstruction notation and the relationship among class-III and related weak formations vary.
The noun and verb formations belong together, but the exact formation, chronology, and semantic direction are reconstructed rather than witnessed.
Only as a qualified proposal. The Germanic comparison is firmer than the displayed Indo-European route, whose semantic members are far from transparent.
No. Orthographic forms and comparative analysis constrain the history, but no sound recording or complete transition series exists.
No definitive total is promoted. The h-word list reports ten, while the headword page exposes eleven linked rows including variants; the project warns that the concordance is unreviewed.
The sources preserve different analytical levels. Project Wulfila gives separate class-III and class-I lemmas; Orel publishes distinct comparative formations. Braune says hatan fluctuates with class-I hatjan, while Sturtevant proposes a specifically Gothic secondary explanation.
No. Project Wulfila gives masculine or neuter genitive plural for hatandane and masculine nominative or accusative plural for hatandans. The clauses resolve the contextual readings through syntax and Greek alignment, but the surface forms remain formally syncretic.
They overlap in the Gothic hate field, but the surviving passages do not prove total synonymy. Luke 1 uses fijandam for enemies and hatandane for those hating; Luke 6 reverses those constructional roles. Sturtevant treats semantic association as relevant to formal association, not as proof that every sense and construction was identical.
Possibly, not securely. Orel publishes *xatēnan ~ *xatōjanan behind a Germanic cognate set. Sturtevant instead judges a specifically Gothic secondary origin more probable, and Braune records fluctuation with hatjan.
Only probably. The Germanic family is stronger than the deeper proposal; grief, care, mourning, hatred, pursuit, and persecution do not form one transparent semantic sequence, and some proposed cognates may not belong together.
Possibly, but the immediate route is disputed. American Heritage gives direct noun descent; Merriam-Webster says the noun was probably derived from haten and replaced hete.
The Germanic action evidence makes pursuit or persecution a serious proposal, not a settled origin. Beowulf, hettan, German hetzen, and Hati support the comparison, but the full deep family remains murky.
Only probably. The formal correspondence is widely published, but grief, care, mourning, love, and hatred do not form a transparent semantic chain, and some proposed cognates may not belong together.
The inherited Germanic verb family is probable, but reconstruction notation and the relationship among weak formations vary across references.
Köbler's sigla mark inferred or unattested representations inside his lexicographic system, while the later corpus surfaces inflected forms hatijen, hatie, hata, and hatien and one misleading hatia homograph. The exact source-base difference remains to be reconciled.
The reviewed sources do not flatten the dialect evidence. Popkema marks hetia as West Lauwers, Corpus Oudfries places relevant records in West Old Frisian texts, while StarLing labels hatia East Frisian.
Not established. The dictionaries document damage and enemy-pursuit senses, but the reviewed records do not supply a continuous dated semantic transition series.
Not established. The Book of Rudolf has an older text-date range but a later manuscript, and this review did not compare every witness, edition, or dating claim.
No. Lexicographic forms include hatia, hetia, and hātia, but the reviewed sources do not provide audio or a complete dated phonetic transition series.
Only as a qualified proposal. The Germanic comparison is firmer than the displayed Indo-European route, whose semantic members are far from transparent.
The inherited weak verb is secure, but scholarly notation varies. Merriam-Webster prints *hatōjan-; Orel prints *xatēnan ~ *xatōjanan and includes a second related *xatjanan formation.
Possibly relevant, not established. Beowulf, hettan, German hetzen, and the action contexts motivate a pursuit or persecution proposal, but the deeper semantic comparison remains unresolved.
The witnesses disagree in form and the analytical layers disagree in labeling. Project Wulfila’s current morphology lists A hatize as genitive plural and B hatis as nominative or accusative singular; Braune calls B hatis a consonantal genitive beside A hatizē, while Streitberg’s later teaching glossary calls genitive hatis erroneous.
No single verse can establish an invariant meaning. Galatians aligns plural hatiza with Greek thumoi, while other biblical contexts use orgē and Ephesians 4:31 does not permit a clean one-to-one choice. The exact semantic center of ordinary Gothic remains underdetermined by translation texts.
Not by themselves. Koch publishes Proto-Celtic *katsi- and a wider *kad- comparison, but Middle Irish cais itself carries both love and hatred, and Liberman challenges whether several non-Germanic comparisons form one transparent family.
Not established. The translation belongs to a fourth-century tradition, the surviving codex is early sixth century, and no complete lost-text or spoken-language archive exists.
No recorded voice survives. The macron and grammatical spelling support a historical phonological analysis, but they do not license an audio-like exact realization.
The reviewed sources distinguish class-II hatizōn, class-I hatjan, and class-III hatan. Hatis clearly supports two denominatives, while the precise historical relationship among all three verb systems remains disputed.
Only through the noun family’s qualified proposal. The Germanic derivation from hatis is firmer than the deeper comparison, whose grief, care, mourning, love, hatred, and anger fields do not form one transparent sequence.
The located scholarship does not collapse to one answer. Project Wulfila gives separate class-I and class-III lemmas; Orel publishes distinct Germanic formations. Braune says hatan fluctuates between class III and class I, and Wright lists both under the same gloss.
Not in the surviving Gothic clause. Matthew 5:44 uses hatjandam for people who hate; Middle High German hetzen develops pursuit and hounding senses in a daughter branch. The formal comparison does not make every branch share every meaning.
Only probably. The Germanic family is stronger than the deeper proposal; grief, care, mourning, hatred, pursuit, and persecution do not form one transparent semantic sequence, and some proposed cognates may not belong together.
ONP maintains a separate masculine analysis, but it rests on one citation and the editors flag it as possibly an elementary error. The possibility remains visible without being promoted to parity with the 54-citation neuter entry.
Possibly in one context. ONP prints question marks before both the Danish and English glosses and compares Latin irrisio. One source-reported passage does not establish a broad independent sense.
The noun is reconstructed, and published notation reflects stem alternation and analytical choices. Koch prints *hataz ~ *hatiz- while the atlas reuses the shared *hatiz- node.
Only as a qualified proposal. Formal correspondence is published, but the semantic chain through grief, care, pain, pursuit, and hatred is not transparent.
The inherited noun is part of the history, but the immediate path is disputed. American Heritage presents Middle English hate from Old English hete; Merriam-Webster says the Middle English noun was probably derived from haten and replaced hete.
Only probably. Merriam-Webster publishes the proposal but says the semantic relations among grief, mourning, care, and hatred are far from transparent; Liberman questions whether all proposed non-Germanic cognates belong together.
Possibly, but not securely. Liberman points to Old English hatian in a pursuit context, German hetzen, Old English hettan, and the pursuer Hati; he presents pursuit as the most promising concrete history while leaving the rest murky.
No. Köbler lists hatandiero or hettendero under the verb hatōn as present participial forms and also under hėttiand, a lexicalized agent noun meaning enemy.
No. The separate hėttiand entry establishes the lexicalized noun analysis, while the verb entry retains the same readings as participial evidence. The surviving phrase alone does not erase the overlap.
Köbler lexicographically gives both hassen and verfolgen, so the action range belongs in the record. The four-locus inventory does not by itself assign both readings to every token or establish their chronology.
The comparative family is secure, but notation is not singular. Orel prints the alternation while Köbler prints Germanic *hatōn.
The weak verb and Old Saxon heti belong to the same inherited family, but the exact formation direction and chronology among noun, weak-verb paradigms, and agent noun remain reconstructed.
Only as a qualified proposal. Formal correspondence is published, but grief, pain, care, mourning, pursuit, hostile action, and hatred do not form one transparent semantic sequence.
That is not established. Dictionaries group both forms under the history of hassen, while corpus-wide scholarship shows that ēn verbs can acquire ōn double forms. The exact relationship for this lexeme still requires token-level paradigm study.
No consensus is established. DWB calls hostile pursuit or persecution original inside the German history, while Pokorny’s account explicitly says the Germanic facts do not establish pursue as the root’s basic meaning.
The ōn citation form has class-II morphology, but the historical record also preserves ēn forms associated with class III. Corpus-wide scholarship treats such double forms as a real Old High German problem rather than a typographic nuisance.
The comparative verb family is secure, but its notation and subclass are not singular. Orel prints *xatēnan ~ *xatōjanan, while Starling prints *xatōn-, -ēn- beside other related formations.
The weak-verb reconstructions are grouped with the *hatiz- noun family, but the exact formation, chronological direction, and relation among the ēn, ōn, and jan verbs are reconstructed rather than witnessed.
Only as a qualified proposal. Formal correspondence is published, but grief, pain, care, mourning, pursuit, and hatred do not form one transparent semantic sequence.
Possibly, but the immediate route is disputed. American Heritage gives direct descent; Merriam-Webster says the noun was probably derived from haten and replaced hete.
Only probably. The formal comparison is published, but the grief, care, mourning, love, and hatred meanings do not form a transparent sequence and some proposed cognates may not belong together.
That is a plausible reading because Köbler lists only accusative, dative, and genitive evidence, but no explicit legend defining this exact trailing star was located in the reviewed source.
No. Fulk compares Old Saxon heti and Old English hete as i-stems and says Gothic hatis transferred to the a-stems; Pfeifer calls the wider noun an old es/os-stem.
It is the atlas's reviewed cross-source representation, not a recording. Köbler prints *hati-, *hatiz, Koch gives *hataz ~ *hatiz-, and Pfeifer's stem-class description differs.
No. The Heliand context supports persecution or endured hostility at one branch locus, but a daughter-language context cannot by itself establish semantic priority in Proto-Germanic or Proto-Indo-European.
No. The reviewed sources supply spellings, editorial vowel notation, grammar, and comparison, but no recorded voice or fully dated phonetic sequence.
Only as a qualified proposal. Formal correspondence is published, but grief, pain, care, battle, hostility, persecution, and hatred do not form one transparent semantic sequence.
The evidence supports both analyses in different editorial systems. Tío Sáenz lemmatizes hettende under hettan; Clark Hall calls it a participle of hatian; Bosworth–Toller lists hettende among the forms of the masculine noun hettend, “enemy.”
Probably not historically, but the surviving forms are easy to merge. Orel assigns hettan to *xatjanan and hatian to a separate *xatēnan ~ *xatōjanan formation; Clark Hall nevertheless sends hettende to hatian, and Bosworth–Toller cross-refers hettan to hatian.
No single gloss exhausts the record. Orel glosses Old English hettan “hate” but Middle High German hetzen “pursue”; the attested enemy forms encode an antagonist, and Liberman argues for pursuit or persecution as an older concrete history.
Only probably. The formal comparison is published, but grief, care, mourning, love, pursuit, persecution, and hate do not form a transparent sequence, and some proposed cognates may not belong together.
Unresolved in the located sources. Bailey prints *hezzen with an asterisk and reconstructs it from Middle High German and cognates, while Duden and the older Kluge entry refer to an Old High German hetzen without visibly marking the form as hypothetical.
Both descriptions occur, and their priority is not settled here. Duden analyzes a causative to hassen; Orel derives *xatjanan from the hate noun; Bailey and the medieval record foreground chase or persecution.
Only probably. The Germanic comparison is stronger than the deeper PIE proposal; the proposed grief, care, mourning, hatred, and pursuit meanings do not form one transparent sequence.
Hospital’s path to Latin hospitāle and hospes is secure; the further reduction of hospes from *ghos-pot- remains probable rather than certain.
The guest-master compound is a strong published analysis, but the amount of phonetic reduction has led scholars to question its exact form.
The guest-master compound is a strong published analysis, but the amount of phonetic reduction has led some scholars to question its exact form.
A deeper exchange root has been proposed, but Merriam-Webster labels the analysis hypothetical and the other reviewed root references stop at *ghos-ti-.
No. The lexical formation is secure, but the sources do not date a single physical-to-social-to-moral transition.
The dossier records the semantic field and withholds a fabricated event date.
Merriam-Webster publishes the Middle English form humiliacioun, and Harvard’s Chaucer corpus indexes one occurrence. This review did not inspect an underlying manuscript, prove an exact composition year, or establish that no earlier English occurrence survives.
Promote a specific manuscript or early edition leaf only after facsimile inspection, textual-location verification, and a defensible date.
Merriam-Webster reports the fourteenth century broadly. The Middle English Dictionary supplies a circa-1390 Chaucer citation with humylitee, but this review did not inspect its underlying manuscript witness, and the located citation does not prove that no earlier English occurrence survives.
Promote an exact earlier manuscript or edition witness only after direct facsimile inspection and textual-location verification.
No simple rule of that kind fits this entry: Köbler explicitly reports nominative plural hotie and huotia plus nominative singular huoti beneath hōti*. The exact convention remains unstated in the located material.
No. They establish witness variation across M and C. The available spellings, manuscript dates, and editorial macrons do not by themselves recover one exact phonetic sequence.
The reviewed sources disagree. UT files hōti under k̑ād- with hate reflexes; Köbler reconstructs *hwōtja- beside *hwōtō and the *kʷē̆d- / *kʷō̆d- complex.
No. “See hatōn” is a lexical cross-reference; the same entry's E field supplies the distinct *hwōtja- etymology. Cross-reference, semantic neighborhood, and parent edge are separate claim types.
Not from the located evidence. Köbler says compare the noun *hwōtō “threat,” which establishes a proposed relationship but not a fully demonstrated direction of formation.
No. It is a Pokorny etymon adapted in a comparative database whose pages are explicitly under active construction. Its link to hōti is a published proposal.
No. Spellings, cases, manuscript variation, and editorial vowel length do not supply recorded speech or one completely dated phonetic reconstruction.
No. That is an evocative modern paraphrase, not an attested ancient definition. The route itself is disputed, and the visible contexts establish hostile disposition or intent without recovering prehistoric consciousness.
Not from the reviewed evidence. Merriam-Webster calls the proposed base uncertain and the Lithuanian comparison doubtful; Etymonline likewise marks the Greek prehistory uncertain.
The graph stops at Greek eikōn rather than converting a doubtful comparison into an ancestor.
Merriam-Webster reports 1572; Etymonline reports the 1570s. The exact year fits within the broader decade but remains a source-reported horizon.
1572 is stored as the exact lexicographic report while the broader horizon remains visible.
Both routes are published. American Heritage specifies Old French intellecte; Merriam-Webster permits Middle French or Latin. The displayed French route is probable, not exclusive.
The Latin form is traditionally analyzed through inter- and legere, and selection or discernment informs the semantic history. A literal gloss is not a complete account of cognition.
No. The traditional *leǵ- analysis remains probable, while *sleǵ- is a published alternative. Neither reconstructed shape is treated as an attested word.
Not from the reviewed English etymology. It gives only Inuit qayaq. Official Greenlandic qajaq evidence proves a related living form, not that Greenlandic was uniquely the immediate donor.
The donor node is explicitly labeled variety unspecified, and narrower forms remain related evidence.
The reviewed article argues for a *kad- / *kad-ï analysis and discusses the older *kay- account. The historical kayguk stage is secure; the deeper derivation remains proposed.
Both analyses remain named; the linear dossier follows the article's preferred route at proposed confidence.
The reviewed sources establish English kimchi from Korean 김치. They do not establish a deeper lexical ancestor, so historical spellings or cultural antiquity are not promoted as a parent edge.
The dossier ends at an explicit evidence boundary pending specialist Korean historical-lexicographic review.
The main sequence—gemination, umlaut, glide loss, and ending loss—is strongly evidenced, but the exact dating of West Germanic gemination and the analysis and chronology of Sievers’ Law remain debated.
The English noun and adjective routes are well supported, but the exact prehistoric consonant, stem, and derivational analyses across the wider Germanic family are not reducible to one unqualified form. American Heritage prints *kundjaz and *kundiz; EWA discusses *kenþa-, *kunđa-, and *kunđi- plus unresolved voicing and borrowing questions.
The condition element is secure, and American Heritage assigns it through Germanic *rēdan to PIE *rē-dh-. But Merriam-Webster notes that Old English evidence can reflect a probable relationship to geræde “ready,” older analysis through rædan “advise,” and partial merger with ræding; Germanic *raidja- and *rēd- outcomes can be difficult to separate.
The kin-base derivation is secure in the reviewed sources, but its exact social interpretation is not. EWA gives a member of a noble lineage; Meli proposes one who brings distinction to his lineage. “Leader of the kin” is not a neutral translation of either analysis.
Possibly, but uncertain. American Heritage presents Latin lēx from *leǵ- as one analysis and separately allows a possible “laid down” route from *legh-.
The canonical graph publishes a proposed competing edge from lēx to *legh- without replacing the existing route.
No. It is a reconstruction printed by Etymonline; comparative evidence supports the family, while exact notation and intermediate morphology remain analytical.
The asterisk and probable grade remain visible on the node and both adjacent edges.
No. Latin legere covers gathering, selecting, and reading, but the precise semantic steps cannot be recovered from a slogan alone.
That semantic bridge and the deeper gather-root connection are plausible published analyses, not an uncontested fact. The root shape *leǵ- versus *sleǵ- is also disputed.
Association with saints’ lives and inherited narratives supplies the historical environment, but the semantic expansion was gradual rather than one datable pivot.
No. Latin legere is traditionally compared with *leǵ-, while *sleǵ- remains a published alternative.
The references disagree. Merriam-Webster reports 1606; Etymonline gives the 1650s, while CNRTL cites NED for before 1655. The earliest reviewed year remains source-reported rather than object-verified.
Not securely. A collection-of-rules bridge is plausible and published, but the direction, root shape, and precise cognates remain disputed.
Not in the reviewed evidence. *Hlaibaz is reconstructed as Proto-Germanic, while a shared European substrate source with Greek baking-vessel words is introduced only as perhaps.
The main spine ends at an explicit boundary; the Greek forms remain graph-only proposed comparisons.
The traditional *leǵ- reconstruction remains widely represented, while published scholarship argues that the gather/collect root began with *s. The graph preserves both analyses.
The collect/say comparison is old and substantial, but a neat story about “gathering words” exceeds what the comparative forms alone can prove.
“Love” is a convenient gloss, but daughter languages point to a field including desire, pleasure, approval, and care.
Portuguese manga is the secure immediate source; Malayalam māṅṅa is probable, not absolute, and no deeper Dravidian reconstruction is promoted in this review.
The edge is labeled probable and the graph ends at an evidence boundary.
The family source is secure, but related Massachusett moos and Eastern Abenaki mos do not by themselves identify one unique direct donor.
The donor node remains variety unresolved and the specific forms are relatives.
The naming may refer to the shape of a muscle, a tendon, or movement visible beneath the skin; the reviewed sources do not select one mechanism as secure.
Dutch mossel may have influenced the current English spelling.
The exact resemblance that carried the mouse-derived Latin word to a mussel is not securely identified in the reviewed record.
The Latin knowing family is secure, but the further comparison of scīre with a cutting/separating root is only proposed.
The references differ. American Heritage labels omnisciēns Medieval Latin; Merriam-Webster labels the immediate form New Latin and analyzes it as a back-formation from Medieval Latin omniscientia.
No secure reviewed etymology derives it as Latin per plus sonāre. The historical sources instead report a probable Etruscan connection and treat the origin as difficult.
The product surfaces the familiar sound-through account only as a rejected or unsupported certainty claim.
No. Latin persōna to Etruscan phersu is probable in major references, while the deeper Greek comparison is proposed and contested.
The graph uses two uncertainty grades rather than flattening the route into fact.
It remains disputed. A major English dictionary and Sánchez support Mapuche ancestry; current RAE and Iwasaki advance a Spanish-internal analysis grounded partly in an early 1530 record.
Both routes remain visible; the linear dossier marks the Mapuche edge proposed and the canonical graph adds a competing Spanish route.
Both routes are published. American Heritage specifies French transmission; Merriam-Webster gives Latin; Etymonline explicitly allows French and direct Latin.
No. The traditional *leǵ- analysis remains widely represented, while a published *sleǵ- reconstruction challenges the initial consonant.
The pro- plus verbum structure is secure, but the reviewed sources do not force one modern gloss for the prefix’s semantic contribution inside the inherited saying term.
The reviewed English etymology says only Inuit qayaq. Greenlandic qajaq proves a living related form, but not one uniquely identified borrowing event.
The lexical family is joined while donor-variety precision remains unresolved.
Religious symbolism, inherited medical theory, logistics, and observation have all been proposed; no single motivation is treated as proven here.
The Latin source is secure, but the immediate channel remains plural in the reviewed authorities: American Heritage gives Old French, while Merriam-Webster allows Anglo-French or Latin.
The shared deep ancestry is secure, but the immediate medieval history is convergent: Merriam-Webster foregrounds Old English, while American Heritage explicitly gives both Old French and Old English.
Unknown. A salt allowance, purchase money, and euphemistic honorarium have all been proposed without decisive evidence.
Both appear in the reviewed references at different representational resolutions. SET-U reuses *séh₂l- as the canonical dossier node and records *sal- as an alternative notation, not a second word.
The dispute concerns reconstruction notation and analysis, not whether the daughter words belong to a salt family.
Petri Kallio proposes Proto-Finnic *sakna as an ancient borrowing from Palaeo-Germanic *stagh-ná-, with pile or stack developing through stone-pile stove to sauna. The proposal has support but remains disputed.
SET-U preserves the proposed edge, the semantic bridge, the challenge, and the stopping boundary together.
No single analysis is secure. A discern-from-separating bridge is plausible, but the formation and semantic development remain disputed.
No. Merriam-Webster publishes the traditional *tkeH- comparison and records a materially different LIV derivation from *h₃ekʷ-.
The resemblance and Central Asian transmission routes have motivated a hypothesis, but direct evidence connecting the Buddhist term to the Evenki word remains insufficient.
The Sanskrit comparison is a speculative competing graph edge, not part of the promoted linear ancestry.
Not yet. The Latin word is clear, but its formation has attracted competing proposals.
WALS describes a Dutch-mediated European route, while Merriam-Webster compresses the etymology to borrowing from Xiamen Chinese dé. The displayed Dutch stage is probable, not silently declared unanimous.
The reviewed evidence safely derives thípi from a dwelling root; suffix analyses vary in how they label the final morphology, so the dossier promotes “dwelling” rather than one viral literal sentence.
The root and noun relationship are established; the over-specific folk gloss is withheld.
Probably Scandinavian, perhaps Old Norse traust, but the reviewed authorities do not present the precise donor as certain.
No. ONW reports that most editions read fiunt, Heyne proposed an error for diufil, both can render Latin diabolus, and the initial D has competing analyses.
Possibly, not certainly. Van Veen, De Vries, Van Haeringen, and EWN repeat variants of the proposal that medieval Devil usage made vijand a church or consecrated term whose full ending resisted the reduction seen in vriend. Their wording is maybe or probably.
Only as a qualified proposal. Kroonen and EWN publish deeper laryngeal-bearing analyses, but their notation and intermediate formation differ and the harm, blame, suffering, hostility, and hate path is not uniquely recoverable.
De Vries proposes a ritual social explanation, but the accessible evidence does not establish it as the unique historical path.
No. The early records and comparative languages show both social fields, but the reviewed sources do not recover a single semantic priority event.
WNT raises the historical spelling issue, but the route preserves both written and spoken evidence rather than reducing the standard word to one editorial intervention.
Not completely. The participial reconstruction is well supported, but no recorded Proto-Germanic token or full paradigm survives.
The shared deep comparison is published but remains proposed and less secure than Old Dutch and Germanic *frijōnd-.
No direct ancestry is established. Merriam-Webster calls the comparison probable, while the secure reviewed line stops at Old English wīf.
Kwīpe is a side comparison with its own boundary, never the parent in the dossier spine.
No. Duden labels the origin unclear and offers a veiled bride or busy housewife interpretation only as possibilities.
Neither interpretation becomes a node or ancestry edge until stronger comparative evidence is promoted.
Not from the reviewed evidence. The route can be argued more securely than a single adoption year.
The journey stage keeps both date and point unresolved.
Not from the reviewed sources. Merriam-Webster establishes Greek etymologikos behind Latin etymologicus, while CNRTL documents late Latin use in Diomedes; neither identifies one precisely dated borrowing event.
The journey retains two unresolved stages instead of manufacturing a year or a map pin.
CNRTL names Latin etymon as the immediate donor; the Académie calls the French word a learned borrowing from Greek. The graph preserves the Latin route as probable, not certain.
The competing source stance stays attached to the borrowing edge.
No. Formal comparison does not recover one original semantic scene, and the reviewed sources explicitly call the semantic relations opaque or disputed.
No. LSJ says some marriage-based explanations of Iliad 13.464 and related passages are wrong and directs those uses back to anxiety or grief.
LSJ parenthetically links κῆδος with κήδω, whose active and middle-passive senses span distress and care, but the located entry does not fully argue one diachronic direction.
It is a published comparison, not an uncontested fact. Multiple sources place the Greek noun in the family, while the semantic and membership cautions require proposed confidence.
No. They occur in a published wider comparison, but semantic breadth and branch membership remain debated.
No. The formal comparison is prominent enough to traverse, but the sources explicitly qualify the semantic path and do not recover one shared original sense.
No. The Greek senses are attested, but their internal chronology and the cross-branch prehistoric sequence are not recoverable as one linear ladder.
Vasmer lists several Turkic comparanda and routes but does not reduce them to one uniquely established immediate donor.
The graph uses a Turkic-relay relation instead of a fabricated one-language parent.
It is a published comparison that strengthens the *set-u- analysis, but the exact Armenian preform and common-base morphology remain proposed.
The graph connects the branches at proposed confidence and stops before a fabricated certainty.
Rekhta labels the current Urdu headword Persian in origin, while the wider references establish only the Chinese-derived overland family. Persian is therefore probable as the immediate source, not promoted as a uniquely dated event.
The edge encodes the overland family and states the probable Persian relay in its confidence note.
The exact date and mechanism remain unknown. Iranica derives the word from Chinese ch’a but explicitly says the adoption event is uncertain.
No fabricated caravan, intermediary language, or exact year is placed in the graph.
No. ἐτήτυμος is attested, but the *setu-mo- and *set-u- stages beneath ἔτυμος remain reconstructed and disputed.
Attested reduplication and proposed ancestry keep different confidence classes.
It supports the proposal, but the reconstructed preform, ablaut, and suffixation are not directly attested or unanimous.
The path ends at a boundary instead of treating the reconstruction as a fossil spelling.
Gális presents Lydian contact only as a theoretical possibility, not an established cause of Greek psilosis.
The contact hypothesis remains in the dispute layer and is not encoded as a factual ancestry edge.
No. The analysis is serious and published, but the exact morphology and wider *set-u- family remain debated.
The asterisked nodes and proposed confidence remain visible on every reused edge.
DECISIONS WITH RECEIPTS
Resolved means SET-U has an editorial position supported by the current reviewed sources. It does not mean future scholarship is forbidden from reopening the question.
No. Merriam-Webster gives oral or written expression as one sense and doctrine, theory, or science as another; American Heritage separately gives discourse or expression and science, theory, or study. “Study of” is a useful reading in many formations, not a universal historical definition.
The dossier and truth ledger preserve the wider semantic range instead of substituting one classroom mnemonic.
No evidence reviewed here supports that representation. Merriam-Webster calls -logy a noun combining form and explains that a hyphenated entry is a word element forming part of a compound; the historical forms are likewise evidenced within larger formations. The unrelated adjective logy “sluggish” has a different history.
Every stage retains the leading hyphen, and the attestation ledger identifies host-word evidence rather than inventing standalone tokens.
No. They are relatives in the Greek logos and legein family, but English -logy follows -logie, Latin -logia, and Greek -logiā, while prologue follows Greek prologos through Latin prologus and French prologue. Related ancestry does not erase distinct formations and transmission paths.
The graph connects both paths at Greek logos without collapsing the English endings into one morpheme.
No freestanding token is established by the reviewed evidence. Cambridge calls it an onomastic element and Bolelli and Campanile call it the second member of compound personal names. The form is attested through those hosts, while Proto-Celtic *rīx-s is reconstructed.
The dossier retains a leading hyphen, identifies host witnesses, and keeps the asterisk on the reconstructed Proto-Celtic parent only.
No. The linguistic sources segment -rīx or orthographic -rix as the onomastic element and align it with Proto-Celtic *rīx-s. Treating -ix alone as the inherited unit cuts through the initial r of the morpheme.
The headword and witnesses distinguish the evidence-bearing element from a modern visual stereotype about Gaulish names.
No borrowing is required by the reviewed comparative account. Celtic -rīx and Latin rēx are inherited cognates: Celtic raises Indo-European *ē to *ī, while Latin preserves ē.
The graph joins the branches at reconstructed ancestry and draws no Latin-to-Gaulish edge.
The Latin name belongs to an early Roman year beginning in March, when December occupied the tenth position. Calendar reform changed the position while the name persisted.
The contradiction is historical layering, not a mistranslation.
No. The High German record centers on enemy or adversary. DWB does document der böse Feind or der Feind for the Devil, but that is a historical specialization beside the ordinary enemy noun, not the original definition.
The dossier preserves the secondary Devil use without rewriting the German headword as a demon noun.
No borrowing is established. German Feind continues Old and Middle High German forms; English fiend independently continues Old English fēond. Both branches meet at reconstructed *fi(j)and-.
The graph joins the words at the Germanic formation and draws no English-to-German arrow.
No. The participial source is historical morphology. Modern Duden senses include personal enemy, hostile power or force, and a determined opponent of something without requiring a recoverable emotion in every token.
The truth claim is diachronic, not a compositional definition imposed on modern speakers.
No. Duden also records hostile powers, enemy soldiers or troops, threats to a group, figurative natural enemies, and opponents of practices or causes.
The headword gloss and semantic journey retain the documented range.
Not in the reviewed sources. They are variants inside the Old and Middle High German continuation of one inherited enemy noun.
The graph chooses one representative node per historical stage and keeps the remaining spellings as cited relatives.
No. DWDS and DWB compare parallel fossilized participial morphology. The antonymy does not establish one verbal base or a single lexical root.
Freund remains a parallel formation outside the ancestry trail.
No. German Feind remains an ordinary enemy noun, English fiend foregrounds demon and vicious-person senses, and Old Norse is glossed enemy or devil. Shared ancestry does not erase branch-specific semantics.
The leaderboard reveal compares outcomes without treating one daughter language as the original meaning.
No. Gothic, Old English, Old Frisian, Old Dutch, Old High German, and North Germanic parallels require an earlier Germanic formation.
The graph places *fi(j)and- at the Proto-Germanic level.
No. DWB speculates about foam and rage but immediately says the matter should remain undecided and requires confirmation. It is evidence of scholarly history, not a secure ancestry node.
The foam proposal is preserved as a challenged hypothesis and excluded from the canonical route.
Yes at the word-formation level. Pfeifer and Grimm identify a substantivized present participle of the Germanic love verb; Duden paraphrases the original sense as the loving one.
The dossier states historical morphology, not a mandatory modern definition.
No. The reviewed ancestry runs through vriunt and friunt to the Germanic love or favor verb family. Modern Freude is not inserted as its parent.
Collateral family resemblance is not direct derivation.
No. Grimm explicitly contrasts the love verb behind Freund with the different hate verb behind Feind. Parallel agent morphology and antonymy do not establish cognacy.
A context link connects the grammatical mirror without an ancestry edge.
No. Pfeifer and Grimm document neighbor, lover, blood relative, ally, supporter, patron, and address uses.
The dossier preserves semantic plurality.
Yes. Grimm records older and contextual uses of the masculine noun for female referents. Grammatical gender and referent sex are not identical.
Modern stylistic expectations are not projected backward.
No. It is a normalized comparative reconstruction behind the daughter-language cognates.
The asterisk remains visible.
No. The participial source is diachronic morphology; contemporary dictionaries give lexical friend, partner, supporter, and ally senses.
The leaderboard avoids the etymological fallacy.
No reviewed earlier node clears the evidence boundary.
The route ends at UNKNOWN.
No. Modern Duden centers intense aversion and hostility, but DWB reports Middle High German hostile action, anger expressed in deeds, pursuit, and measured rivalry beside the familiar disposition sense.
The semantic history preserves the rare side meanings without replacing the current definition.
Yes in one cited Erec context. DWB quotes riders who friuntlîchen striten and calls their contest bescheiden haʒ, rivalry in pursuing a goal. This does not make every medieval use friendly.
The leaderboard claim is limited to the cited contextual sense and source-reported status.
No. Duden reports a spelling change; the noun continues Old and Middle High German haʒ and centuries of New High German Haß or hasz.
The graph models spelling reform as an edge, not a lexical birth.
Not in the reviewed record. DWB says hostile disposition is exclusively attested in Old High German and places the friendly-rivalry passage in Middle High German Erec.
The route does not project the Erec sense backward into the eighth century.
No borrowing is established. German Hass continues Old High German haʒ; English hate continues an Old English noun-and-verb history. The branches meet at reconstructed Germanic material.
The canonical graph joins the words at shared reconstruction and draws no English-to-German arrow.
No. They are standard-spelling stages of the same noun. Duden explicitly flags the 1996 spelling change without a semantic or pronunciation split.
The forms remain separate route nodes only so the orthographic event is visible.
No across history. DWDS marks current Hass as singular-only, while DWB calls historical plurals rare and quotes theological hasse and poetic die hasse.
The dossier does not turn a current grammar label into an eternal ban.
No. Duden defines a strong feeling of rejection or hostility; DWB says New High German ordinarily preserves hostile disposition. Action-centered uses matter historically without becoming a requirement for every modern token.
The current headword gloss remains feeling-centered while the ancestry edges preserve the action dispute.
No. Their histories converge deeper in the desire-and-care family, but Old High German liubî is analyzed through Germanic *leubīn while Old English lufu follows the *lubō branch.
The graph keeps the two Germanic noun formations distinct and joins them only at reconstructed *lewbʰ-.
No. Modern adverbs can modify verbs, adjectives, other adverbs, prepositions, phrases, clauses, or entire sentences.
The dossier rejects a definition inferred only from the visible name.
No. Latin adverbium contains the directional prefix ad-, from the Indo-European ad- base, plus verbum. English add is not a component.
The component graph makes the historical prefix independently traversable.
No. The historical dictionaries establish that one Nahuatl word had fruit and anatomical senses; they do not establish which sense came first or motivated the other.
The contrarian reveal is the documented fact plus the refusal to overclaim it.
No. Al-jabr named restoration or completion, including a specific equation-solving operation; the word later expanded to the discipline.
No. Arabic and Romance transmission includes reunion of broken parts and bone-setting. That real medical sense should not be confused with the mathematical title history.
No. Algorism is older. Algorithm is the later altered form, with its th commonly explained through Greek arithmos or arithmetic influence.
The lexical graph connects both through shared Middle English algorisme while arithmetic remains a context link, not an ancestor.
No. The lexical line reaches the Arabic name al-Khwārizmī through Medieval Latin. Greek arithmos likely influenced the later spelling, but it is not the source of the name.
The graph separates ancestry from later spelling influence.
It ultimately reflects a geographic personal name, “the Khwārizmian,” which became attached to transmitted arithmetic.
Both dates describe different editorial claims. Oxford/MacTutor reports the spelling in 1699 for numeral calculation; Merriam-Webster gives 1926 for the currently defined finite-procedure sense.
SET-U stores both attestations and labels the sense boundary.
No. The references use different editorial and official spellings for the Aymara animal word while agreeing on Aymara ancestry.
The dossier promotes the official educational spelling and exposes the alternatives as relatives.
No. Arithmetic descends through Greek arithmos “number.” Algorithm descends from al-Khwārizmī's name; arithmos influenced the later spelling rather than supplying the ancestor.
The connection is a cited historical-context link, not a lexical edge.
The source word āhuacatl is documented with both avocado and testicle senses. The reviewed dictionary entries do not establish which sense came first or that one was a deliberate anatomical naming of the other.
SET-U states the two-source lexical fact and labels the stronger naming story as an unsupported inference.
No. It is the historical prefix bi- or be-, related to Old English bi- or be- and bī “by, near,” not the copular verb.
A second graph branch exposes the prefix and prevents a false copular-be analysis.
Not exclusively. American Heritage records Middle English boi as male servant, churl, and young male.
The dossier does not pretend one gloss exhausted the medieval word.
No. Bosworth-Toller records brȳd, bride or spouse, separately from brid, the young of a bird; the reviewed bride path follows brȳd.
Surface resemblance is not allowed to create a homographic ancestry edge.
No. The inherited form had guma or gome, man; groom replaced the opaque element by folk etymology.
The path preserves both the inherited compound and the later remodeling.
No. Germanic *gumōn- and Latin homō reflect different earthling formations that meet only at *dhghem-.
Separate nodes prevent a catchy earthling connection from becoming false direct ancestry.
No. eDIL explicitly says the noun is explained both as love and hate, gives love glosses such as serc and grádh, and cites passages translated with love or beloved.
The dossier displays both semantic poles and cites each separately.
No. eDIL also gives miscais and mioscais hatred glosses and cites passages translated with hatred.
Love is not promoted over hate as the noun's sole value.
No. eDIL places both explanations, glossary equations, and citations inside headword 1 cais, also caise.
The graph models one lexicographic entry while leaving deeper historical sense structure open.
Context can support many readings, as eDIL's translations show, but the entry expressly says texts may be capable of either meaning according to context and some records remain un-translated or tentative.
Each attestation preserves its source confidence instead of inheriting one global gloss.
No. eDIL assigns eye to a separate numbered headword, 2 cais, with its own eye gloss and citation.
The eye word is recorded as an excluded homograph and never used as ancestry evidence.
No. eDIL says it is generally not an etymological dictionary and supplies etymologies selectively. The deeper graph route therefore rests on separately cited comparative scholarship.
Lexicographic meaning evidence and comparative ancestry evidence are kept distinct.
No. The contrast is evidence that some contexts oppose the forms, but prefixal morphology and a translated contrast do not by themselves recover the oldest sense of bare cais.
The graph records the contrast and leaves chronological priority unknown.
No. The compound supplies one negative formation, not a license to reinterpret every positive citation as concealed hatred.
Derived forms remain contextual relatives rather than universal semantic definitions.
No. They are a selected historical-dictionary evidence surface, not a balanced corpus or a sample of medieval speech.
No frequency ratio or prevalence claim is calculated from the entry.
No. eDIL says revisions were targeted and that a revised component does not mean an entire entry received uniform revision.
Source records identify the current web surface without claiming total editorial uniformity.
Latin calculus did name a pebble used on a counting board, and the computation sense developed from that practice.
No. The reviewed English history begins with Middle English calkelatour, a person who counted or computed; the machine inherits that human agent label.
The dossier places the human reckoner before the undated machine specialization.
No. The first reported English sense is white; clear, pure, fair, honest, frank, and photographic senses develop later.
The dossier orders physical color before moral and behavioral meanings.
Not exclusively. Its earliest English family includes brightness and unstained purity; straightforward honesty becomes the dominant modern sense.
The semantic sequence is shown as radiance to purity to frankness, without claiming one instantaneous shift.
No. The oldest sequence starts with chess, then stop and restraint; verification and banking are later semantic branches.
The semantic history displays branching rather than projecting the modern meaning backward.
Not entirely. Merriam-Webster reports Middle English chekmaten with both chess and frustrate senses.
The graph begins the semantic coexistence in Middle English.
No connection is asserted. Merriam-Webster labels the grass-name origin unknown.
Sense keys and dossier scope prevent a spelling match from merging unrelated lexemes.
No. The reviewed Greek history begins with khthōn, earth, and khthonios, of the earth; underworld reference is a specialization of what lies below.
The dossier preserves earth and underworld senses without turning one into a false literal translation of the other.
No. Greek khthōn and Latin humus are separate daughter formations under *dhghem-.
The graph joins them only at the reconstructed earth root.
It disproves the rule as a universal law, not the global tendency. Portuguese merchants used a maritime route yet Portuguese retained a cha-type form.
The leaderboard turns the exception into a lesson about probabilistic historical patterns.
No. The oldest reviewed sense is a ball of thread. The guiding and evidence senses develop from stories in which a thread leads someone through a difficult place.
The dossier keeps clew and clue connected while separating literal ancestry from later metaphor.
No. The reviewed source labels Old High German kliuwa and Sanskrit glauḥ as akin forms, not successive ancestors of English clew.
The comparisons appear as relatives and the direct path ends at an explicit boundary.
No. Greek myth influenced the English word’s meaning; the word itself is inherited from Old English.
Model as semantic influence, not lexical borrowing.
Yes. Latin colligere contains the assimilated together-prefix com- / col- and legere “gather, select.”
No. Moral awareness is early and central, but the Latin family and an obsolete English sense also include consciousness or general awareness.
The dossier does not erase morality; it places it inside the wider recorded semantic field.
No. The reviewed etymologies derive the adjective directly from Latin cōnscius, and Merriam-Webster reports the adjective circa 1600.
The graph does not invent an English noun-to-adjective derivation.
No. The earliest reviewed route names a milk-production place built on the woman responsible for the work.
Modern product senses are retained as later semantic expansion.
No. They are related formation, stem, and noun shapes with different grammatical and lexical roles.
Separate canonical nodes prevent convenient spelling similarity from erasing morphology.
No. The adjective and noun come from the Latin tenth/ten family; the visible point is part of later notation, not the word’s ancestor.
The graph terminates in the numeral family, not punctuation.
Merriam-Webster reports the adjective in 1608 and the noun in 1623. These are lexicographic first-use reports, not inspected objects.
The headword witness records the earlier adjective date and discloses its evidence limit.
No. That was its earliest English historical sense, but drastic reduction and destruction have been established since the seventeenth century.
The graph preserves both the numerical origin and legitimate semantic change.
No. The Latin and historical punishment sense is real; the error is using etymology to ban later English meanings.
The contrarian truth retains both halves rather than choosing a pedantic myth.
No. Greek dia- means through, across, or between, not two; both reviewed histories explicitly reject or contradict the two-person restriction.
SET-U treats participant count as a usage property, not a false morphological limit.
The coin sense is reported from 1786, but the word itself already existed in Middle English and Anglo-French for a tenth part or tithe.
The dossier preserves both the medieval word and the later United States specialization.
No. The recorded history foregrounds straightening, guiding, pointing, and directing; immediacy is one later semantic branch.
The dossier keeps all major functions and does not declare the oldest meaning the only true one.
No. Merriam-Webster routes the verb and adverb through Anglo-French directer while giving the adjective from Latin directus.
The canonical graph preserves the main verb path and a separate adjective borrowing edge.
Yes. Italian disastro is analyzed as a negative prefix plus astro “star,” reflecting an astrological frame for misfortune.
Represented as morphology and semantic history, not as modern causal science.
Neither. The dough noun and lady’s kneading component follow separate Germanic formations that meet at *dheigh-.
The graph reuses the root while preserving both formations.
No. *daigaz, *dhoigh-o-, *dheigh-, and *dheig̑h- are comparative reconstructions, not manuscript spellings.
The dossier crosses visibly from attested dāg into reconstructed nodes.
No. Unicode and Merriam-Webster identify Japanese 絵 e “picture” plus 文字 moji “written character.” Emotion plus icon is the distinct English formation emoticon.
The canonical graph branches 絵文字 into 絵 and 文字; it does not create emotion or icon parents.
No. Emoticon is English emotion plus icon. Emoji is Japanese e “picture” plus moji “character.” They can depict overlapping things without sharing a word formation.
The two dossiers are joined by a context link and rabbit hole, never by a fabricated ancestry edge.
No. That slogan is a modern folk segmentation. The documented route is French émotion through emouvoir / esmovoir to Latin ex- plus movēre, literally a movement-out or stirring family.
The graph exposes the actual prefix and verb as cited parents instead of substituting an English rhyme.
No. Etymology is a word’s historical development, distinct from its current definition; origin does not legislate present meaning.
The contrarian truth rejects the etymological fallacy rather than treating a past sense as the real one.
No. -ist creates the English person-label etymologist; the base etymology has its own older French, Latin, and Greek ancestry.
The graph branches at etymologist into a lexical-base trail and an affix trail.
No. The English agent noun is reported only from the Early Modern period, though its base ultimately contains Greek material.
The dossier prevents component meaning from becoming a fabricated ancient occupation.
The reports are compatible at different precision: Merriam-Webster gives 1532 and Etymonline gives the 1530s.
Both locators remain attached to the same derived English edge.
Not in the reviewed record. Transitive use is reported in the 1530s; Etymonline places the intransitive study-or-practice use in the 1650s.
Separate journey stages preserve the semantic chronology.
The reviewed entry forms English etymologize from etymology + -ize and merely compares French étymologiser and Medieval Latin etymologisare. Comparison alone does not prove direct borrowing.
The comparanda are relatives, not parent nodes.
No. Ancient etymology pursued a word’s “true sense”; the modern comparative discipline developed much later.
No. Merriam-Webster defines it as an earlier same-language or ancestral form, a foreign loan source, or a word or morpheme used in composition or derivation.
The truth claim uses the dictionary’s full definition rather than a simplified slogan.
Yes. Merriam-Webster records etyma and etymons, with etyma preserving the learned Greek-style plural.
Both variants remain visible as cited relatives.
Yes at the Medieval Latin level: exhumare is formed from ex, out of, and humus, earth.
Both components are preserved as separate graph parents.
No. Its recorded Middle English field includes make, fabricate, make a likeness, dissemble, and pretend.
The modern false-appearance center is a semantic narrowing, not the entire ancestry.
No direct descent is established here. The root appendix groups them under the same nasalized shaping formation, while feign has its own documented French and Latin chain.
Related words remain siblings unless a source warrants a directional edge.
No. Female continues Latin fēmella through French; male only influenced its later English spelling.
The only female-to-male graph edge is typed analogical_influence, never inheritance.
No. It is a proposed comparative analysis of the Latin word’s deep formation, not a timeless or prescriptive definition of people.
The reveal states the historical formation without turning origin into essence.
No. Latin fictiō includes shaping or molding, feigning, pretense, and legal fiction; Middle English begins with invention of the mind.
Narrative is shown as one later center inside a larger inherited field.
No. Latin fictiō and figūra are sibling formations in the fingere and *dheigh- family; neither English word is the parent of the other.
The graph meets at fingere or deeper, never through a fiction-to-figure edge.
No. OED records enemy or foe from Old English to 1450 and explains the Devil as a specific use of enemy as the ultimate adversary.
The dossier begins with enemy and models Devil and demon as semantic specializations rather than original definitions.
No. English fiend continues Old English fēond; Gothic fijands is a collateral Germanic cousin. Both meet at reconstructed *fi(j)and-.
No Gothic-to-English borrowing edge is drawn.
No borrowing is established. OED and the Middle English Dictionary both derive the medieval forms from Old English fēond or fīond.
The graph keeps one inherited English branch through medieval spelling variation.
No. OED reports coexisting long and short vowels in Middle and early modern English and says the long vowel became dominant by the eighteenth century.
The dossier does not read modern spelling backward as a single nine-century sound value.
No. OED calls friend an antonym with a similar agent-noun formation. Similar morphology does not establish one lexical root.
Friend remains a morphological parallel, not a parent, child, or cognate.
No. Enemy or foe remains recorded into the fifteenth century while Devil, demon, monster, and other senses coexist through the Middle English record.
The timeline models specialization and coexistence, not replacement at one moment.
No. OED invokes Hebrew śāṭān, adversary, to explain the conceptual and translation background of the Devil-as-Enemy use; it does not derive the English word from Hebrew.
The graph records the Germanic ancestry and keeps Hebrew out of the lexical parent chain.
No. They are the Middle English Dictionary’s current quotation set across eight senses, not every historical utterance, lost witness, or surviving token.
The count is labeled as dictionary evidence rather than total historical frequency.
No. OED marks the literal enemy or foe sense obsolete and dates that sense through 1450, while supernatural and hostile-person senses continue.
The contrarian claim is historical, not a prescription for current usage.
No. SO and SAOB cover personal opponents, hostile states or forces, military collectives, natural enemies, and figurative nonhuman threats.
The literal one-who-hates belongs to historical word formation and is not imposed as the definition of every modern token.
Yes at the inherited formation level. SO says originally hatande; SAOB says it is properly a present participle to a Germanic hate verb; Hellquist independently gives the same analysis.
The dossier labels the parent with an asterisk and presents one-who-hates as a word-formation analysis, not an attested Proto-Germanic phrase.
No. The fi(j)- verb family behind fiende is distinct from the hat- family behind Swedish hata.
The graph connects fiende through *fi(j)ēn- and treats hata as a cited collateral semantic comparison, never a parent node.
No. SO and SAOB classify current fiende as a noun. The participial origin is historical and lexicalized.
The interface says frozen or lexicalized participle and does not give modern Swedish a fiende verb paradigm.
Yes. Söderwall gives medieval Devil records, and SAOB gives multiple early-modern uses including the 1526 apposition fiende diefuulen.
The demonic branch remains visible as attested Swedish semantic history.
No. SO defines an opponent prepared to harm a counterpart and supplies ordinary, military, figurative, and natural-enemy uses. SAOB marks the older Devil use as barely current by 1924.
The main gloss remains enemy or opponent, not demon.
No. Historical religious contexts can use Fienden that way, but SO also notes definite singular in ordinary military use. Grammar alone cannot choose the referent.
Attestations retain their contexts instead of using capitalization or definiteness as an automatic semantic classifier.
No. It is the earliest use reported by SO, not a birth certificate. The inherited cross-Germanic formation predates the surviving Swedish record.
The timeline says first reviewed Swedish evidence, never invention date.
No. This review inspected dictionary records and a scanned etymological dictionary page, not the Skåne-Lagen manuscript, Söderwall’s underlying medieval objects, or the cited early-modern print pages.
Every fiende attestation remains directly_inspected=0, and the dossier creates no witness-inspection record.
No borrowing is established. Old Swedish fiande or fiände belongs to the inherited Germanic set alongside Danish fjende, German Feind, Dutch vijand, and English fiend.
The canonical graph reuses the shared reconstructed formation and draws no daughter-language donor arrow into Swedish.
Not on the cited evidence. SAOB and Hellquist compare fiende with frände with respect to formation; that morphological parallel does not make the two words descendants of one lexical root.
Frände is not inserted as an ancestor or root cognate.
No. Etymology records historical formation, not an immutable present-day essence. Modern fiende covers people, states, armies, forces, and figurative threats whether or not literal hatred is evidenced.
The leaderboard reveal exposes hidden morphology while the dossier explicitly rejects the etymological fallacy.
No. Its Latin and medieval fields include shape, form, likeness, symbol, and representation; numerical use is one branch of a wider history.
The dossier does not project one modern sense backward as the whole word.
No. Latin figūra and Germanic dough forms are separate root formations under *dheigh-.
The surprising connection is cognate depth, not borrowing or direct descent.
No. Project Wulfila exposes 42 candidates under fijan, but only 13 are verified, eight more are lexically unambiguous but unverified, and 21 are explicitly shared with the fijands noun inventory.
Every total is labeled candidate inventory, and the 21-token overlap remains visible.
Yes, once in the current inventory: John 7:7 writes fijan. The other 41 candidates are inflected forms, and fian is a normalized variant redirect rather than a separately inventoried exact infinitive token.
The dossier distinguishes the one written infinitive from the lemma and spelling variants.
No. Verbal contexts commonly translate Greek miseō, but the shared fijand- formation also corresponds to Greek echthros, enemy. Luke 1:71 and Luke 6:27 even reverse the constructional work done by fijan and hatan.
The dossier records contextual equivalents and token ambiguity instead of a one-to-one lexicon.
No. Ayora Estevan analyzes it as an experience verb whose Experiencer takes a Stimulus as accusative object. Surviving objects include people, one’s soul, one’s flesh, evils, and what one does, so the grammar encodes a relation toward an object rather than a free-floating feeling alone.
The semantic history records the predicate frame without claiming that every context shares one modern psychological model.
No. Ayora Estevan argues for pre-Gothic, Proto-Germanic lexicalization because Old Norse, Faroese, Old English, Old Frisian, Old Dutch, and Old High German preserve parallel enemy nouns.
The graph places *fi(j)and- at the Proto-Germanic level and keeps the Gothic noun as its descendant.
No. They measure a bounded, fragmentary textual corpus with duplicate manuscript witnesses, biblical translation effects, and unresolved lemma assignments.
The interface never calls the total all historical uses or a speech-frequency sample.
No. Werden, Prague, Stockholm, Holland, and Uppsala trace custody of four inspected evidence objects long after Gothic ceased to be a living vernacular in those places.
Every post-Ravenna journey stage is labeled object custody rather than lexical diffusion.
No. Project Wulfila exposes 26 candidates under fijands: three verified, two further noun-only but unverified, and 21 explicitly shared with the fijan verb inventory.
The site labels 26 as candidates, five as noun-only, and 21 as unresolved overlap.
No. Old Norse, Faroese, Old English, Old Frisian, Old Dutch, and Old High German enemy nouns require a pre-Gothic Germanic formation.
The graph places *fi(j)and- at the Proto-Germanic level and Gothic fijands below it.
The reviewed Gothic noun inventory centers on enemy and regularly translates Greek echthros. Old English feónd developed or preserved devil senses, but that collateral history cannot be projected backward onto every Gothic occurrence.
The graph separates cognate branches and their semantic histories.
No. English fiend continues Old English feónd; Gothic fijands is a collateral Germanic cousin from the same reconstructed formation, not the donor of the English word.
The graph connects both branches at *fi(j)and- rather than drawing a Gothic-to-English arrow.
No. They measure a bounded fragmentary textual corpus with biblical translation effects, ambiguous lemma assignments, and duplicate manuscript witnesses.
The interface never calls the total all historical uses or a speech-frequency sample.
No. Werden, Prague, Stockholm, Holland, and Uppsala trace custody of evidence objects long after Gothic ceased to be a living vernacular in those places.
Post-Ravenna journey stages are labeled object custody rather than lexical diffusion.
They are separate surviving manuscript tokens, but duplicate witnesses of one passage cannot be counted as independent acts of historical usage.
Attestations preserve each physical witness and explicitly reject frequency inference.
No. One-who-hates describes the inherited formation. Current Danish defines an enemy by opposition or harm, not by a required inner emotion.
The dossier exposes morphology without committing the etymological fallacy.
No borrowing route is established here. DDO compares both with Old Norse fjándi, and comparative research places them under the inherited Germanic formation.
The graph joins the words at a reconstructed ancestor and draws no German-to-Danish arrow.
Both patterns are source-reported. Holbergordbog separates three-syllable and two-syllable scans and links the latter with Finde and Fînde forms.
Variation remains visible rather than being normalized into one timeless pronunciation.
Not in the reviewed articles. They are treated as surface and scansion variants of the same lexical family.
The forms remain relatives and attestations, not false ancestry nodes.
Yes in a bounded religious branch. ODS identifies den gamle Fjende and related uses as the Devil, while ordinary enemy remains the general sense.
The Devil is neither erased nor promoted into the word’s sole original meaning.
No source inspected establishes that. Old Danish is glossed simply enemy, and the historical dictionaries present Devil as a special development inside the broader enemy field.
The graph separates inherited formation from later contextual specialization.
No. Historical and current records apply it to states, military forces, animals, ideologies, weather, sleep, passions, and other harmful abstractions.
The dossier models extensions without turning them into separate ancestors.
It preserves the historical analysis, not a productive modern Danish verb: the noun was originally a present participle of a verb corresponding to Old Norse fjá, hate or persecute.
Modern meaning and historical grammar remain separate fields.
No. It bounds surviving Old Danish evidence and does not date the prehistoric lexicalization or first spoken Danish use.
Corpus onset and word creation are not conflated.
Not necessarily. It is evidence for metrical realization and variation, not audio or a complete social map of pronunciation.
The pronunciation history is evidence-bounded.
No. They are collateral inherited continuations; English specialized the demonic branch much more strongly.
The rabbit hole compares siblings without inventing transmission.
No. It is a normalized Proto-Germanic reconstruction used to explain cross-branch evidence.
The asterisk remains structural and visible.
No. A near-word list is lexical navigation, not identity. DDO’s definition centers active opposition, harm, or destruction and its origin field separately explains the old participle.
Interface adjacency is not converted into an etymological claim.
Yes. ONP classifies it as a poetic verb; Cleasby, Zoëga, and Fritzner all gloss it as hate and document finite or reflexive grammar.
The dossier keeps the verb distinct from the lexicalized noun fjándi.
No. The public ONP lemma marks the word poetic and displays zero citations across every expected prose genre.
The dossier does not fabricate prose attestations.
No. This review inspected dictionaries, concordance metadata, and normalized text surfaces, not the manuscripts behind the three poems.
No facsimile or manuscript-verification claim is attached.
Yes in the reviewed normalized teaching text: sú er goð fjá. Cleasby and Fritzner independently locate the verb there.
The claim is about the normalized textual record, not manuscript pixels.
Yes in the reviewed normalized text and historical dictionaries: þann er mangi fíár means the one whom no one hates.
The surface form remains an inflectional relative, not a false ancestor node.
No on the reviewed evidence. Cleasby, Zoëga, and Fritzner classify the reflexive under fjá, and the teaching text preserves þik skal Freyr fiásk.
The reflexive form remains evidence inside the same dossier.
No. Cleasby identifies fjándi as the surviving participial relative, and the separate ONP dossier classifies it as a masculine noun with 222 prose citations.
The graph joins the words through the reconstructed verb family rather than collapsing their entries.
No. They come from different public corpora with different genres, coverage, editorial states, and counting rules.
The rabbit hole presents the contrast as corpus architecture, not a statistical ratio.
No daughter-to-daughter borrowing is established. The dictionaries compare them, and Kroonen places them under a reconstructed Germanic verb.
The graph joins them at *fi(j)ēn- and draws no donor arrow among daughters.
No. It is a normalized Proto-Germanic reconstruction used to explain the daughter-language set.
The asterisk remains structural and visible.
No. It is a generated transliteration widget, not a cited inscription, object, shelfmark, or manuscript record.
The runes are excluded from attestations and witness counts.
No. The project explicitly says the concordance has not been reviewed and that dates, especially, should be checked.
The dossier preserves count three with probable confidence and assigns no point dates.
In the attested entry it is a masculine noun. The participial analysis belongs to its inherited formation, not to a relabeling of every Old Norse token.
The graph separates the attested noun from the reconstructed lexicalized participle.
Not in the reviewed historical account. The ordinary enemy sense is older, and Cleasby and Vigfússon place the fiend development after Christianity.
The dossier says enemy before Devil without assigning a fake first year to either innovation.
No. It is a historical word-formation gloss, not a psychological claim about every enemy, demon, god, animal, object, or insult target.
The leaderboard exposes morphology while rejecting the etymological fallacy.
Six numbered zones, with additional formulas: enemy or opponent; devil, monster, or demon; evil spirit; pagan god; the Devil or Satan; and a derogatory hated or bewitched being or thing.
The interface preserves the branches rather than flattening them into demon.
No completeness claim is made. They are the public entry’s current citation set, valuable evidence rather than the set of every surviving occurrence.
The dossier says 222 citations in ONP, not 222 total historical tokens.
No. The project explicitly says its concordance is unreviewed and dates may come from earlier editions and should be checked.
The 960, 961, and 1190 records remain source-reported and probable, not directly dated witnesses.
No. It is a source-reported composition date. Surviving manuscript copies may be later, and none is directly inspected here.
The attestation type is lexical_corpus_record and directly_inspected remains false.
No. ONP’s citation record and linked image index were inspected, but the exact manuscript token was not located and verified on the folio image.
No facsimile URL or witness-inspection row is created.
No evidence here establishes that. ONP documents a rhetorical and semantic opposition, while the ancestry graph routes fjándi through *fi(j)and-.
frændi is labeled a non-cognate contrastive relative, not a parent or cousin.
No. The words are collateral inherited continuations of the Proto-Germanic lexicalized enemy formation.
The graph joins the words at *fi(j)and- and draws no daughter-to-daughter donor arrow.
No. Old Norse retains ordinary enemy and multiple supernatural branches, English foregrounds fiend, while German Feind and Swedish fiende remain ordinary enemy nouns.
Shared ancestry does not erase branch-specific semantic history.
Yes at the word-formation level. OED, Bosworth–Toller, and American Heritage independently identify a present-participial formation on the love or favor base.
The dossier states this as historical morphology, not a mandatory modern definition.
Yes. OED places friend on the Germanic base of free, Bosworth–Toller glosses freón as free or love, and American Heritage traces both through Germanic *frī-.
The relation is represented through the shared reconstructed base.
No. Historical relationship is not synchronic definition. OED gives friend its own extensive noun senses, while the Germanic base links the histories.
The graph rejects an etymological-fallacy slogan.
No. OED says fiend shows a similar formation, but the two agent nouns are built on different verb bases. Parallel morphology does not establish cognacy.
A cited context link and rabbit hole connect them without an ancestry edge.
Yes. MED derives frẹ̄nd from Old English frēond, and OED supplies the continuous form history into modern English.
Attested stages remain separate nodes with their own dates and forms.
No. OED and MED inventory friand, freond, frend, frind, vrend, freynd, frynd, and many further forms.
Variant spellings are evidence, not duplicate word origins.
No. It is a normalized reconstruction used to represent the common participial formation behind the daughter-language set.
The asterisk remains structural and visible.
No. OED and MED document ally, supporter, patron, relation, lover, address, and other uses beside close companion.
The summary preserves semantic plurality rather than a single definition.
No. The reviewed sources establish a lexical base spanning love, favor, and freeing; they do not recover one legal or sociological institution behind the word.
The dossier keeps semantic reconstruction separate from institutional speculation.
Yes. OED lists the Old and modern West Germanic forms in the inherited cognate set.
They are relatives, not daughter-to-daughter borrowings.
No. OED says the Scandinavian words center the sense relative, while their ordinary friend sense is expressed by another word family.
Cognacy does not require identical later meanings.
No. It is one source-reported Old English textual witness, not a birth certificate for the word or its earliest surviving physical token.
The attestation remains source-reported.
No. OED describes Old English ēo and īo, late monophthongization, and Middle English long and short vowel variants.
Spelling continuity is not phonetic stasis.
No. Historical phonology supports normalized approximations, not audio recordings or one recoverable dialect realization.
Only the modern headword receives a current phonemic transcription.
No such cognacy is established here. American Heritage uses them as transparent love-to-friend analogies, not as ancestors of English friend.
No ancestry edge is drawn to Latin or Greek.
No. American Heritage places them in related Germanic formations under the wider *frī- family; they are collateral relatives, not descendants of English friend.
They appear as relatives, never children of the English headword.
No. The displayed form is already a proposed reconstruction, and no deeper node clears the reviewed evidence boundary.
The route ends at UNKNOWN.
Yes at the comparative word-formation level. OED places the Old Icelandic form in the inherited participial cognate set, while Cleasby–Vigfússon and Fritzner derive it as a participle of frjá.
The claim concerns historical morphology, not a mandatory contextual meaning in every Old Norse occurrence.
No. ONP structures friend, foster brother or companion, kinsman or son, parents, and ancestor senses and says the boundary between friend and kin is not sharp.
The dossier preserves the structured polysemy.
Yes, but not the exclusive sense. Cleasby–Vigfússon and Zoëga center kinsman, while ONP preserves narrower friend and companion groups beside the much broader relative record.
The leaderboard says semantic center, not only meaning.
No. They descend from different Germanic verb families. Their Old Norse pairing is rhetorical and semantic, not genealogical.
A cited context link preserves the genuine formula without drawing a false ancestry edge.
No distinction is established here. ONP uses frǽndi as an editorial headword, while Cleasby–Vigfússon and Zoëga print frændi for the same masculine noun.
Orthographic and vowel-length notation remain documented in notes rather than split into fake ancestors.
No. It is a normalized reconstruction behind the daughter-language cognates.
The asterisk remains visible.
No. Cognates can diverge semantically. OED explicitly contrasts West Germanic friend with Scandinavian relative, and ONP documents the Old Norse distribution directly.
The shared graph node does not collapse the daughter-language glosses.
No reviewed earlier node clears the evidence boundary.
The route ends at UNKNOWN.
No. ONP explicitly structures a friend sense and a foster-brother or companion sense, even though historical dictionaries emphasize the dominance of kinsman.
Semantic specialization is represented as a shift in center, not total erasure.
Yes at the comparative word-formation level. OED identifies a noun use of the Germanic present participle, Bosworth–Toller calls freónde loving the participle of freón, and American Heritage independently gives one who loves.
Historical morphology does not dictate one literal interpretation for every written noun token.
No. The formation motivates the inherited noun, but attested uses include companion, ally, relation, religious epithet, and legal arbitrator.
The loving-agent reveal is presented as word formation, not an exhaustive token gloss.
No. OED separates close acquaintance, non-enemy or ally, and relation senses already in Old English; Bosworth–Toller adds patronal, religious, and arbitration contexts.
The dossier refuses to project one modern friendship norm backward.
No. OED cites the Rushworth Gospels and Laws of Cnut under close relation or kinsman. The sense later becomes regionally restricted in English but is attested in Old English.
Scandinavian semantic specialization does not make the English kin sense imaginary.
Yes. OED cites the early Old English Orosius translation for Hannibal never becoming a friend of the Romans and separates ally from intimate-companion use.
Ally remains distinct from etymological ancestry.
No. OED calls fiend an antonym with a similar formation, while the reviewed graph traces the nouns to different love and hate bases. Bosworth–Toller’s pair is rhetorical evidence, not genealogy.
A context link preserves the historical pair without a false ancestry edge.
No separate lexemes are established here. OED treats them as dialectal reflexes: ēo chiefly West Saxon and Mercian, īo chiefly Northumbrian and Kentish, and īa Kentish unrounding.
Dialect evidence remains visible without duplicating the headword.
No. OED explains them as inherited i-mutated inflectional forms, with some analogical re-formation possible elsewhere in the paradigm.
Inflected forms remain evidence rather than fake lexeme dossiers.
No. OED records endingless mutated and unmutated plurals, re-formed frēondas or frīondas, and rare vowel-final analogical forms.
Variation is a feature of the evidence, not noise to erase.
No. It is a normalized reconstruction behind a published cross-Germanic cognate set.
The reconstruction remains visibly starred.
No. The directly inspected object proves one inflected form in one manuscript witness. It is not a birth certificate for the lexeme or the poem.
The witness is strong object evidence with deliberately narrow scope.
No. Companion, ally or non-enemy, relation, religious friend, and social-legal helper uses are already represented in the Old English citation record.
Later English expands the word further, but it does not create all semantic breadth from nothing.
No secure split is modeled. Bosworth–Toller links feón directly as a similar entry and the full paradigm lists feón among fēogan’s contracted variants.
Feón remains a variant relative rather than a second ancestry node.
No. The dictionary glosses hate and persecute, while examples take people, crimes, evil, unjust ways, law, peace, and a temple as objects.
The dossier keeps the historical transitive range instead of substituting a single modern psychological gloss.
Not as a simple word-to-word descent. Fiend continues Old English fēond, the lexicalized Germanic one-who-hates formation; fēogan continues the related verb base.
The graph joins them at reconstructed word formation and draws no fēogan-to-fiend borrowing edge.
No. Feógende is the productive Old English participle listed in the verb paradigm. Fēond is a lexicalized nd-agent noun inherited from the prehistoric formation.
Morphological ancestry is preserved without erasing lexical category.
No. Bosworth–Toller records a separate homographic feón meaning rejoice, be glad, or exult. Shared spelling after contraction does not establish shared sense or ancestry.
The rejoice homograph is excluded from the ancestry trail.
No borrowing is established. Bosworth–Toller presents Gothic, Old High German, and Old Icelandic comparisons, while Kroonen reconstructs their Germanic verbal ancestor.
The graph uses inheritance from *fi(j)ēn-, not borrowing from Gothic.
No. They are presented inside one paradigm or as linked contracted forms. Variation in vowel, spelling, and contraction is evidence about the verb, not a license to multiply headwords.
The variants remain relatives attached to one canonical headword node.
No. They are the examples exposed by this dictionary entry, not a count of every surviving token, manuscript, lost text, or spoken use.
The dossier labels every occurrence source-reported and makes no corpus-total claim.
No. A spelling variant supports textual variation but does not by itself fix one phonetic value across dialects, periods, and inflections.
The form is preserved without converting orthography into false acoustic certainty.
No. Bosworth–Toller gives enemy, foe, and Devil, while OED separates literal enemy, the Devil, demons, and malevolent-person uses already present in Old English.
The dossier keeps the senses distinct instead of retrojecting modern fiend onto every token.
No. English fiend continues Old English fēond; Gothic fijands is a collateral Germanic cousin. Both meet at the reconstructed *fi(j)and- formation.
No Gothic-to-English borrowing edge is drawn.
No. OED classifies it as a strong masculine agent noun originally in the nd-class, and cross-Germanic evidence places lexicalization before Old English. Its participial origin remains historically visible without erasing noun status.
The graph uses lexicalized_participle for historical formation and noun for the attested Old English category.
No. OED explains unmutated dialect forms and i-mutated inflectional forms inside one inherited paradigm, with later analogical remodeling.
The variants remain relatives and witnesses of one dossier rather than duplicate headwords.
No. OED dates enemy or foe from Old English to 1450 and marks it obsolete; Devil was originally a specific use of enemy as the ultimate adversary.
The semantic route preserves specialization rather than replacing the early range with the modern one.
OED explains the Devil as the original or ultimate enemy, early translating Latin hostis and ultimately reflecting the literal adversary sense of Hebrew satan. This is a semantic and translation history, not proof of one coinage event.
The site states the bridge without inventing a unique first metaphor-maker.
No. OED records endingless i-mutated and unmutated plurals, re-formed fēondas or fīondas, and occasional weak forms.
The dossier treats inflectional variation as evidence, not noise.
No. OED says friend is an antonym with a similar agent-noun formation. Similar morphology does not establish one lexical root or cognate pair.
Friend is listed as a morphological parallel, not a parent, child, or cognate.
No. The directly inspected folio preserves feondes fotlast in a scene where the dragon finds the foe’s footprint. The pixels establish the form and local context, not the entire lexeme.
The witness record is limited to what the page visibly supports.
No. They are the Middle English Dictionary’s current quotation set across eight senses, not a count of every historical utterance or surviving token.
The count is labeled as dictionary evidence rather than language-wide frequency.
Yes. AWB classifies fîant / fîjant as a strong masculine noun and supplies a large nominal inflectional inventory.
The dossier never relabels attested fīant as a productive present participle.
Not on the cited evidence. AWB calls it a noun, but says its old participial character can shine through in fixed formulas. Residual transparency is not productive category identity.
The interface distinguishes attested noun, formulaic afterglow, and reconstructed participial formation.
No. They are daughter-language evidence compatible with participial history; the Proto-Germanic formation is established comparatively across branches.
No single Old High German phrase is treated as a direct recording of Proto-Germanic grammar.
Yes. AWB glosses the fixed formula as be hostile, hate someone, or wish someone ill and supplies multiple located examples.
The dossier reports the range without forcing the strongest hate reading onto every occurrence.
No. AWB separates personal, public or military, spiritual, and specifically Devil senses. The demonic branch is real but not the whole noun.
The main gloss remains enemy, opponent, or adversary.
No. This review inspected AWB records and Sievers's digitized text-edition page, not the Tatian, Ludwigslied, Otfrid, or Notker manuscript objects.
All fīant attestations remain directly_inspected=0 and no witness-inspection record is created.
No. It is a lexicographic attestation horizon. Inherited cross-Germanic evidence places the formation earlier than the surviving High German record.
The timeline uses a century range and leaves the exact token year null.
No borrowing is established. The daughter forms are collateral inherited continuations of the reconstructed Germanic enemy formation.
The graph joins the words at *fi(j)and- and draws no daughter-to-daughter donor arrow.
Not in AWB's article. They are form, spelling, dialectal, and inflectional records inside one headword history, with a few individual corrupt or ambiguous tokens separately flagged.
The graph uses one canonical attested node and preserves the variants in evidence notes and attestations.
No. Gothic, Old English, Old Frisian, Old Dutch, Old Saxon, and North Germanic parallels require an earlier shared formation.
The lexicalized parent is placed at the Proto-Germanic level.
No. Historical word formation does not dictate the psychology of every referent. AWB includes military collectives, opponents, spiritual enemies, the Devil, and fixed constructions with context-dependent force.
The leaderboard exposes grammatical history while explicitly rejecting the etymological fallacy.
Yes. ONW classifies it as a masculine noun, calls all twenty-six occurrences appellative, and supplies a nominal inflection table.
The dossier labels the attested form a masculine noun.
No on the reviewed evidence. ONW calls it synchronically unsegmented while explaining that it was originally the present participle of the corresponding hate verb.
Attested fīunt is never relabeled as a productive Old Dutch participle.
Not as a known Dutch continuation. ONW says the verb corresponding to Old High German fīēn and Gothic fijan is no longer known in Dutch.
The Dutch trail displays the verb only at the reconstructed Germanic level while linking sideways to attested daughter verbs.
No. It is an occurrence frequency inside the dictionary corpus. The semantic profile currently displays twenty representative location blocks and explicitly warns that locations have been reduced.
The interface says occurrences, never manuscripts or independently preserved objects.
No. ONW pairs those language-period dates with much later copy labels, including 1595–1605, circa 1598, and 1701–1800.
Every WPs attestation remains directly_inspected=0 and preserves its later-copy label.
No. It attests nominative and genitive singular plus nominative, genitive, dative, and accusative plural. Unrecorded cells must not be invented.
The truth claim says six attested cells, not complete declension.
No. ONW defines the main sense as enemy or opponent and says other WPs occurrences translate Latin inimicus; the Devil branch depends on the disputed diabolus gloss.
The main gloss remains enemy or opponent.
No. ONW displays it but explicitly says the Groningen psalm glosses are counted as Old Frisian.
The record is retained as a documented boundary with probable confidence, not counted as uncomplicated Old Dutch proof.
No. ONW groups fiunt, dfiunt, fiundis, fiundes, fiunda, uiande, uiende, fiundo, fiundun, fiundum, uiandan, and viannden inside one lemma and inflection table, while flagging individual readings.
One canonical attested node preserves variants in evidence rows instead of creating false ancestry branches.
No borrowing is established. The daughter nouns are collateral inherited descendants of the reconstructed Germanic formation.
The graph joins the branches at *fi(j)and- and draws no daughter-to-daughter donor edge.
No. Historical word formation does not determine the psychology of every referent. The corpus includes singular, plural, religious, military, and collective opponents.
The leaderboard reveals the fossilized formation while rejecting the etymological fallacy.
No. This review inspected the ONW article and its expanded source-reported records, not the Wachtendonck Psalms copies, Leiden Willeram codex, Groningen gloss object, or rhymed-text witnesses.
All sixteen attestation rows remain directly_inspected=0 and no witness-inspection row is created.
Yes. AWB classifies fîên as a weak verb and supplies infinitive, present-participle, preterite, and past-participle forms.
The dossier keeps the attested verb distinct from the enemy noun fīant.
Not on the reviewed evidence. AWB says it is attested only in Alemannic manuscripts of the eighth and ninth centuries.
The map uses a broad manuscript region and no invented point coordinate.
No. This review inspected the official dictionary article, not the manuscripts behind its gloss and rule-text references.
No witness-inspection record or facsimile claim is created.
No. AWB inventories them inside one weak-verb paradigm as infinitive, present participle, second-person singular preterite, and past participle.
Surface forms remain relatives and attestations rather than false ancestry nodes.
Not in the reviewed grammar. AWB analyzes fiendi as the present participle of fîên, while fîant / fîjant is a separate strong masculine noun; one gloss alignment remains textually ambiguous.
Productive participle, lexicalized noun, and ambiguous gloss alignment remain separate claims.
No. AWB separates hate, not love, or be hostile from abhor or reject, and the Latin alignments vary among odire, exosus, and detestari.
The graph models a bounded semantic field rather than one timeless English gloss.
No. A bilingual alignment is evidence, but translation and gloss practice do not erase contextual or grammatical differences.
Each attestation retains its own locator and editorial note.
Not necessarily. AWB groups not love with hate and be hostile, while other records align the verb with odire and detestari.
No single English emotion word is forced onto the whole dossier.
No daughter-to-daughter borrowing is established. AWB compares the forms, and Kroonen places them under a reconstructed Germanic verb.
The graph joins them at *fi(j)ēn- and draws no donor arrow among daughter languages.
No. It is a normalized Proto-Germanic reconstruction used to explain the daughter-language set.
The asterisk remains structural and visible.
No. Girle could denote a child or young person of either sex and could even be specified as a boy.
The semantic edge records narrowing without claiming a single instant of change.
No. English guest continues the Germanic branch; Latin hostis is a parallel cognate branch that meets it at *ghos-ti-.
The graph has no Latin-to-English guest edge and joins the words only at their reconstructed ancestor.
No in the reviewed dictionary. The suspended bed comes from Spanish hamaca from Taíno; the southern U.S. terrain sense is tied to earlier English forms and a Germanic comparison.
Only the suspended-bed lineage is traced through Taíno in this dossier.
No. Duden separates hatred toward a person from strong aversion toward a thing or action and gives clausal-object examples.
The dossier keeps both current senses instead of forcing every object into personal hatred.
Yes in the reviewed historical accounts. Duden says the old forms also meant pursue; DWB labels hostile pursuit or persecution the original sense and cites Old and Middle High German alignments.
The claim remains source-attributed and does not convert every historical token into persecution.
No such split is established. Duden prints both as historical forms of hassen, while the historical sources preserve variant weak-verb formations and spellings.
The route displays both variants in one qualified stage and leaves exact morphology to the reconstruction dispute.
No. Duden’s current meanings center hatred and strong aversion. Pursuit and persecution belong to the historical semantic account, not a requirement of the current standard verb.
The headword gloss remains current while the older action lane stays visible.
No. They are located reports in DWB. Browser permissions blocked the available digitized editions during this review, so neither a manuscript nor printed edition object is promoted as directly inspected.
Both attestations remain source-reported and have no facsimile or inspection record.
No. It supplies two located historical contexts, not a complete comparison of all earlier witnesses or a token-level earliest-use proof.
The date is a work horizon and the dossier makes no first-known-use claim.
No borrowing is established. German hassen continues Old and Middle High German forms; English hate follows its own Old English branch. They meet only in reconstructed Germanic material.
The canonical graph joins the branches at reconstruction and draws no English-to-German arrow.
Yes. ONP marks hata vb. with the weak stem [-að-], and Cleasby, Zoëga, and Fritzner independently classify the lemma as a verb.
The dossier keeps the verb distinct from the noun hatr and from the different verb fjá.
Yes on the reviewed public entry. The number is a current dictionary-citation count, not a census of every surviving token, lost text, or spoken use.
Every public count remains bounded to the named research surface.
No. ONP structures persecution, rejection, humiliation, ordinary hate, participles, and hostile middle-voice constructions; Fritzner independently preserves persecution and damage or destruction.
The contrarian reveal states range, not one first meaning.
Yes. ONP's first sense is persecute, and its Páls saga citation aligns er þu hatar with Latin quem tu persequeris. Fritzner gives the same passage under pursue.
The persecution sense is kept distinct from ordinary feeling.
Yes. ONP's second sense includes despise, reject, and cast aside; Ragnars saga uses hata gullinu in that prose structure.
This prose record is not collapsed into the disputed poetic gold-spending formula.
Yes. ONP's third sense is mock or humiliate and locates a 1479 confession in which the speaker hatadi God's poor with many insults.
The dossier records the social action without treating it as every token's meaning.
Yes, exactly one in this dossier: Holm perg 15 4° folio 89v. All other prose and poetic records remain source-reported.
Direct inspection is never generalized from one leaf to the whole corpus.
No. They are generated transliteration widgets without an object, inscription identifier, shelfmark, or historical locator.
Generated runes are excluded from attestations and witness counts.
No. A structured dictionary article groups meanings for analysis; it does not by itself prove that persecution came before rejection, humiliation, or ordinary hate in speech.
The leaderboard says sense order and semantic range, never a proven chronology.
No. Both can be glossed hate, but hata belongs to the Germanic hat- family while fjá continues the different fi(j)- verb family.
The graph keeps two entries and joins each to its own reconstructed family.
No on the reviewed evidence. ONP and Cleasby treat the middle-voice, reflexive, and reciprocal constructions inside the hata paradigm.
Inflectional and constructional variation remains visible without creating a false ancestor.
No. The two surviving forms are hatandane and hatandans, both present participles. Hatan is the normalized dictionary citation form assigned by Project Wulfila and the historical grammars.
The dossier labels the lexeme attested through two inflected tokens and never quotes the infinitive as manuscript text.
Project Wulfila currently reports exactly two surviving corpus tokens assigned to the lemma. That count does not include lost manuscripts, spoken Gothic, unrecognized variants, or every use in history.
Every count is explicitly bounded to the currently reported surviving corpus.
No. Luke 1:71 aligns hatandane with Greek misountōn, those hating, but Luke 6:27 aligns hatandans with echthrous, enemies. A dictionary gloss cannot replace verse-level lexical alignment.
The dossier records contextual equivalents rather than assigning one timeless source-language gloss.
No. They measure a bounded and fragmentary textual corpus, not ordinary speech, lost texts, genre distribution, or competition among Gothic hate verbs.
The interface says two reported corpus tokens, never two historical uses or a speech-frequency estimate.
No. It maps custody of the two directly inspected evidence objects. The codex traveled through Werden, Prague, Stockholm, Holland, and Uppsala long after Gothic ceased to be a living vernacular in those places.
Every post-Ravenna journey note explicitly labels manuscript custody rather than lexical diffusion.
No reviewed evidence connects English love directly to English hate. Middle Irish cais has an ambivalent love-and-hatred field inside a disputed comparison, but that is not a genealogical edge between the English words.
The graph keeps love in its *lewbʰ- family and hate in the Germanic *hatiz- family; their meeting remains contextual and disputed.
No. The current verb also covers strong dislike, distaste, and polite reluctance, while older English evidence includes hostile treatment and persecution. One gloss cannot be projected across every period and construction.
Separate semantic claims on the edges and form notes preserve the range.
No. Hate is inherited from Old English noun and verb material; hatred is a Middle English formation first reported in the 13th century. Its suffix names a condition rather than linguistic originality.
The rabbit hole connects the two dossiers while keeping their distinct formation histories.
Yes. Hofmann and Popkema classify hatia, hetia, and hātia as a weak verb; Köbler independently classifies the family as a weak verb.
The dossier keeps the verb distinct from the noun hāt and from Brokmer atia "rear".
Yes for the reviewed May 2026 word-or-lemma query. The number is a current corpus result, not a census of all lost, surviving, or spoken Old Frisian.
Every displayed count names the corpus and review date.
No. Buma identifies the Brokmer B 101 hatia as atia "rear" with prothetic h, and Nijdam's translation concerns a mother unable to feed her children.
The Brokmer token is excluded from the main form's attestation ledger and shown only as a corrected homograph.
No. In context it says that if the mother is so poor that she cannot otherwise feed or rear her children, she may take something from the wergeld.
The family-law context is not reverse-engineered into an emotional sense.
No. Hofmann and Popkema give hate or reject, damage, and a feud-language expression for harming or pursuing someone as an enemy. The corpus records include road and legal-adversity contexts beside theological hate.
The leaderboard claims documented range, not a proven chronological sequence.
Yes in the reviewed legal records. The Register to Jus Municipale Frisonum pairs hatijen with hindrien on the army road, and the Book of Rudolf places hatie in a ban concerning that road.
The exact modern translation remains cautious, but the action context is explicit.
Yes. Jurisprudentia Frisica says God especially hatien the perjurer, lying tongue, and false witnesses, as Solomon describes.
The theological record remains one sense context, not the verb's universal essence.
No. They range across road harm or obstruction, writing or events going against a person, family-law adversity, and divine hatred; two Jurisprudentia Frisica passages remain only cautiously glossed.
The ledger preserves probable contextual glosses instead of forcing one English definition.
No. Corpus Oudfries is a surviving-text corpus dominated by legal and related manuscripts, not a random sample or recording of spoken frequency.
Counts are reported as corpus architecture, never as population frequency.
No. Its grammatical objects include the world or people, a righteous person, subjects’ vices, former enemies, divine enemies, robbers, plunderers, and hostile deeds.
The dossier records object and context variation without replacing every occurrence with one modern psychological gloss.
No. Bosworth–Toller lists separate headwords with different vowel quantity, meanings, examples, and Germanic comparisons. Modern typography that drops macrons can hide the distinction.
The quantity-marked homograph is a cited relative, never an ancestor or duplicate sense of the hate verb.
No. It is one edited occurrence among many textual traditions. Without a complete witness comparison and direct manuscript inspection, it cannot be promoted as the earliest surviving token.
The attestation is labeled source-reported and makes no earliest-use claim.
No. Hatred remains a legitimate dictionary gloss, but the surviving biblical tokens do different translation work: Streitberg maps the noun chiefly to Greek orgē, maps Galatians 5:20 to thumos, and flags Ephesians 4:31 because both Greek wrath nouns are adjacent.
The dossier leads with hatred, anger, or wrath and exposes each contextual alignment instead of selecting one timeless English equivalent.
Project Wulfila currently reports exactly fifteen surviving corpus tokens assigned to the lemma. That is an inventory claim, not a total for spoken Gothic, lost manuscripts, spelling variants outside the corpus, or every historical use.
Every count is explicitly bounded to the current reported corpus.
Both descriptions operate at different historical levels. Project Wulfila classifies the surviving Gothic paradigm as a neuter a-stem; Fulk treats hatis as an inherited i-stem transferred to the a-stems and compares Old English hete and Old Saxon heti.
The root trail states inherited i-stem and Gothic a-stem remodeling in the same cited edge.
Historical grammar derives class-I hatjan from the consonantal stem of hatis, and the University of Texas derivational table builds class-II hatizōn “be angry” directly on hatiz-. The separate class-III hatan remains a wider paradigm and reconstruction problem rather than a proved direct daughter of this noun.
The relatives and rabbit hole expose two documented denominatives and label the third verb separately.
No. Fifteen reported corpus tokens measure a bounded textual survival, heavily shaped by biblical translation and manuscript loss. They cannot estimate how often Goths used the noun, its competing synonyms, or its everyday senses.
The interface calls them corpus tokens and never historical uses or a speech-frequency sample.
No. It maps the custody of the directly inspected evidence object. The manuscript traveled through Werden, Prague, Stockholm, Holland, and Uppsala long after Gothic ceased to be a living vernacular in those places; the other hatis tokens survive in separate witnesses.
Every post-Ravenna journey note explicitly labels manuscript custody rather than lexical diffusion.
No. The manuscript token is hatizoþ. Hatizōn is the lexicographic citation form reconstructed from the inflectional paradigm and printed by the historical grammars.
The interface labels the lemma attested through an inflected token and never quotes the infinitive as manuscript text.
Yes. The lemma page lists only John 7:23 hatizoþ. This is a bounded statement about the current surviving corpus, not all historical Gothic.
Every count names the corpus and does not become a speech-frequency claim.
It asks whether the audience is angry at Jesus. Project Wulfila aligns hatizoþ with Greek χολᾶτε and English “are ye angry at me”; Streitberg and Wright gloss the verb with anger rather than a general act of hating.
The dossier says be angry with or at someone and leaves any unattested broader range open.
Yes as the reviewed grammatical analysis. The University of Texas table explicitly gives hatis, stem hatiz-, and hatizōn; Wright independently classifies the verb as weak class II.
The graph models derivation from the noun without pretending one surviving noun token chronologically caused the verb token.
No. Gothic spelling on the inspected folio writes hatizoþ without a macron. The macron in the scholarly citation form represents analyzed vowel length.
Display typography keeps editorial length notation distinct from manuscript characters.
Project Wulfila analyzes it as active indicative present second-person plural. The pixels verify the form, while the grammatical label remains an editorial morphological analysis.
The witness note separates visible letters from grammatical interpretation.
No. It is the Greek source-text form translated by the Gothic verb in John 7:23. Translation equivalence is contextual evidence, not lexical descent or borrowing.
The Greek form appears as a relative/context record and never as a canonical parent edge.
No. It proves only that the current surviving and verified corpus contains one assigned token. The fragmentary manuscript record cannot measure ordinary speech.
The leaderboard says one surviving corpus token, never one historical utterance.
No. The directly inspected form is hatjandam, a weak masculine dative-plural present participle. Hatjan is the normalized lexical citation form assigned by Project Wulfila and the historical grammars.
The dossier labels the lexeme attested through an inflected token and never quotes the infinitive as manuscript text.
No. It proves only that the surviving and currently verified corpus contains one token assigned to this lemma. The fragmentary manuscript record cannot measure ordinary spoken frequency.
The interface says one verified corpus occurrence, never one historical use or a frequency estimate for speech.
Probably. Braune derives the class-I verb from the consonantal stem of hatis, and Orel derives *xatjanan from *xataz ~ *xatez. The exact reconstructed notation is editorial, but the noun-to-verb analysis is independently published.
The graph presents derivation rather than claiming that one attested Gothic noun token literally precedes the verb token.
No. It maps the custody of the evidence object. The manuscript traveled through Werden, Prague, Stockholm, Holland, and Uppsala long after Gothic ceased to be a living vernacular in those places.
Every post-Ravenna journey note explicitly labels manuscript custody rather than lexical diffusion.
Yes in the dominant edited record. ONP’s main entry is ²hatr sb. n., gives genitive hatrs, and contains 54 citations; Cleasby and Vigfússon also label the noun neuter.
The route labels the headword chiefly neuter while preserving the separate masculine anomaly.
No. Editorial separation records an analytical problem; the 54-to-1 citation imbalance and explicit error warning make equal security unjustified.
The interface says grammar problem, not two established homonyms.
No. ONP’s principal gloss includes enmity and spite, and its citations include definitions involving desire to harm, opposition to love, and contextual persecution. That range does not make every token an action.
The dossier retains hatred, enmity, and spite rather than reducing the noun to modern personal dislike.
Not established. The inspected object proves a token in that codex; neither ONP nor the facsimile inspection licenses a global earliest-surviving-use claim.
The witness card says dated manuscript token, not first use.
No such borrowing is established. The historical dictionaries list collateral Germanic forms, and Koch connects them through a reconstructed Germanic noun.
The graph joins the dossiers at *hatiz- and draws no English-to-Norse or German-to-Norse arrow.
No. The Time gráts ok látrs, time ælsko ok hatrs passage aligns love and hate semantically, but opposition inside a sentence is not a genealogical edge.
The opposition remains an attestation and never becomes a false root link.
No. Middle English -rede / -reden continues Old English -ræden, a suffixal or affixoid element denoting state, condition, or quality.
The graph gives the second component its own cited lineage and never connects it to the color word.
No reviewed source gives an Old English whole-word ancestor. The word is documented as a Middle English formation from hate plus -rede, with a 13th-century first-known-use horizon.
The direct route begins with Middle English hatrede / hatreden and decomposes there.
No evidence reviewed identifies -red as an intensifier. It named a state or condition. Modern hatred can denote extreme animosity, but that lexical intensity is not the historical function of the suffix.
The semantic edge separates present intensity from historical word formation.
No. It is the exact manuscript-M infinitive at Heliand 1451. Köbler normalizes the lexeme as hatōn and reports manuscript C haton at the same locus.
The dossier headword is hatōn; the queue candidate hatan resolves to its own represented variant node.
No. The entry exposes four cited loci: Heliand 1451, Heliand 4915, Heliand 5423, and one GlG gloss. Manuscript variation yields six displayed witness readings across those loci.
The interface says four loci and six readings, never four manuscripts.
Yes. Full-resolution MDZ images of Cgm 25 scans 45 and 142 were visually checked against the line-level transcription and dictionary inventory.
Only those two Munich readings are marked directly inspected.
No. Köbler reports the C readings and Biblissima supplies manuscript identity and dating, but their exact folio pixels were not located and inspected in this review.
Catalog access is not misrepresented as token-level visual verification.
No. The manuscript is cataloged to the second half of the ninth century, while the Heliand work is dated circa 830–840. The numeric 875 is only a representative object date for timeline placement.
No first-known-use claim is made.
No. Biblissima dates the copy to the middle or second half of the tenth century; the Heliand work itself is earlier.
Journey and witness records keep text and object clocks separate.
No. It is one bilingual gloss locus. The Heliand supplies distinct syntactic contexts, and a translation equivalent does not recover every sense, construction, or historical stage.
The gloss remains one source-reported witness, not a universal definition.
No. A daughter-language gloss range cannot establish one Proto-Germanic or Proto-Indo-European basic meaning, and the broader reviewed comparison explicitly remains semantically opaque.
The contrarian claim centers the category boundary, not an origin slogan.
No. Historical lexicalization explains a word formation, not the psychology of every person denoted by the noun.
The reveal names the grammatical fossil while rejecting a universal claim about referents.
No. The Heliand’s poetic place of origin is unknown, the Munich manuscript is cataloged with Corvey, the Cotton witness was copied in England, and the gloss object remains unresolved.
Only the Corvey catalog attribution receives an approximate point.
No. The current dossier verifies dictionary and research-database records plus three source-reported lexical alignments; it does not claim a manuscript object for the normalized infinitive.
The headword remains an attested-language citation form, while direct-object inspection stays at zero.
No. Duden prints haʒʒēn and haʒʒōn, Starling prints hazzēn and hazzōn, and the UT index adds hazēn and hazōn spellings.
The route uses a combined historical-variant node rather than erasing the ēn evidence.
No. It is the century attached to the form in one comparative database, not a demonstrated search of every earlier manuscript, gloss, and edition.
The date remains source-reported and the dossier makes no first-known-use claim.
Yes in the reviewed lexical reports. DWB aligns haʒôn with aemulari and hatamas and hatent with forms of insequi; Duden independently says the older verb also meant pursue.
The action evidence is included without assigning pursuit to every historical token.
No such identity is established. Gothic hatizōn is explicitly analyzed as a class-II denominative from hatis through the stem hatiz-, while Orel places Old High German hazzōn under the *xatēnan ~ *xatōjanan alternatives. Similar normalized endings do not erase distinct immediate analyses.
The rabbit hole connects the dossiers through their evidence-backed graph path without flattening their immediate parents.
No. The reviewed references print hazēn, hazōn, hazzēn, hazzōn, haʒʒēn, haʒʒōn, and haʒôn according to their editorial systems and source conventions.
The entry treats hazzōn as a navigable citation form rather than a unique manuscript spelling.
Not from the reviewed records alone. Quantity marks and consonant spellings encode scholarly analyses, but no audio exists and the dossier does not infer one dialect-neutral phonetic realization.
The pronunciation field remains explicitly not directly recoverable.
No. The sources identify Old High German forms and a corpus-wide Franconian transition-zone finding, but the accessible evidence does not locate this headword’s reviewed records to a single manuscript place.
The journey uses broad linguistic horizons and no invented map coordinates.
No. Historical dictionaries include enmity, malignity, malice, spite, hostility, and persecution, and they document compounds for hostile speech, hostile blows, hostile designs, and other enacted or categorized hostility.
The dossier preserves the attested semantic field and compound evidence instead of projecting one modern gloss backward.
No. Bosworth–Toller lists eleven derived first elements ending in -hete; Clark Hall separately records hetenīþ, heterūn, hetesprǣc, hetesweng, and heteðanc.
The relatives and leaderboard cite the compounds directly.
No. It is one located edited occurrence among many textual traditions listed by the dictionaries. Without a complete witness comparison and direct manuscript inspection, it cannot be promoted as the first surviving token.
The attestation is labeled source-reported and makes no earliest-use claim.
Yes. Köbler reports accusative and dative singular heti, and the exact Munich Heliand 1322 token is visible in Cgm 25 folio 20r.
The dossier headword is the attested surface heti, not the dotted normalized citation form or a Proto-Germanic reconstruction.
No. It is the starred normalized headword of an Old Saxon dictionary entry whose own B field lists written Old Saxon heti and hetias; the entry separately labels Germanic *hati-, *hatiz as its etymology.
SET-U does not move a source's trailing headword star backward in time.
No. It denotes three lexical loci: Heliand 1322, Genesis 60, and the Saxon Confession. The Heliand locus alone has M, C, and V readings, producing five reported witness readings overall.
The interface says three loci and five readings, never three manuscripts.
No. Köbler assigns all three readings to the same Heliand 1322 locus. They are separate witnesses to one textual occurrence, not three line-level uses.
Witness count and lexical-locus count remain separate.
Yes. The full-resolution MDZ image of Cgm 25 scan 41 was visually checked against the dictionary and LWL transcription.
Only the Munich Heliand reading is marked directly inspected.
No. Their readings are source-reported through Köbler or the Academy dictionary; no exact primary-object pixels were inspected for those four rows.
A digital dictionary page is not misrepresented as manuscript inspection.
No. The Heliand work is earlier than the Munich copy, and other witnesses have distinct or unresolved object dates. The numeric year only positions a second-half ninth-century manuscript.
No first-known-use claim is made.
No. Köbler gives Latin persecutio for the Heliand use, and the visible clause says righteous people endure powerful men's heti and harmquidi. The noun functions in an external hostility or persecution setting.
The dossier exposes contextual hostility without claiming that every use means persecution.
No. Genesis supplies a different grammatical environment, and the Saxon Confession places hetias among confessed wrongs beside malice, envy, and slander. One line cannot define the whole lexeme.
The summary states a range and leaves token-by-token translation limits explicit.
Yes. The Academy dictionary prints hetias as genitive singular at S 318,8 = Wa 16,11 and quotes the full sequence ik iuhu nithas endi auunstes, hetias endi bisprakias.
The edited record remains source-reported because the underlying manuscript was not inspected.
Köbler classifies it as masculine strong i-stem, and Fulk directly calls Old Saxon heti an i-stem in comparison with Gothic hatis.
The branch classification is retained even though wider Germanic stem history remains disputed.
No. The Heliand poetic origin is unresolved, its witnesses traveled through distinct manuscript contexts, and the Genesis and confession records are not one production event.
Only the Corvey catalog attribution receives an approximate point.
No. Tío Sáenz’s full-corpus weak-verb inventory lists the lemma as hettan but gives only hettende beneath it. The dossier therefore labels hettan a normalized lexicographic lemma rather than quoting an unattested infinitive token.
The form record and attestation distinguish lemma-level evidence from a directly surviving infinitive.
No. It is one edited poetic occurrence of an ambiguous form. Without a complete witness comparison and direct manuscript inspection, it cannot establish the first token of the lemma.
The attestation is labeled source-reported and makes no earliest-use claim.
No. The Middle High German dictionary centers the verb on driving dogs to hunt and already records transferred human conflict; Early New High German sources later make incitement explicit.
The semantic timeline separates hunting, transferred incitement, haste, and modern hostile agitation.
No as a synchronic definition, though the histories are related. Modern Duden distinguishes chase, hurry, and incitement senses; etymological sources connect the formation with Hass or hassen and the broader Germanic hate family.
The dossier links the family without replacing the verb’s attested action senses with a one-word gloss.
The reviewed dictionaries treat them as senses of one inherited verb. The semantic bridge from making quarry or people move under pressure to hurrying and inciting is historically plausible, though the dossier does not invent exact dates for every transition.
One dossier preserves distinct sense stages instead of duplicating unrelated headwords.
No in the reviewed etymological account. Kluge describes Hetze as a Modern High German formation from the older verb, whose Middle High German history is independently attested.
The relation is modeled as derivation from the verb, not as the verb’s source.
No. English borrowed Navajo hooghan, and the living word carries a Diné home and house meaning with a specific traditional cultural frame.
The summary and semantic edge avoid genericizing the term.
No. The 1818 English record names lodging, especially a religious guesthouse; palliative care is a later specialization.
The semantic edge and timeline refuse to backdate modern medical care to the first English record.
No. The earliest English senses concern lodging for travelers and charitable residence; medical care becomes established later.
The timeline shows the lodging and charitable senses before modern medical specialization.
Yes. The reciprocal hospitality relationship allowed the same participant to receive hospitality on one occasion and return it on another.
The graph preserves one polysemous Latin node rather than inventing unrelated homonyms.
Yes. Latin hospes and its descendants reflect reciprocal hospitality in which the same participant could receive hospitality and later return it.
The graph preserves one polysemous Latin node rather than forcing two unrelated words.
No. Hostel is the historically older-looking English doublet. Both words descend by different French histories from Latin hospitāle.
The graph shares hospitāle while keeping each borrowing route separate.
Early Latin hostis referred to a foreigner or legally recognized outsider before later Roman usage restricted it to a hostile outsider or enemy.
The semantic edge is accepted while its social transition remains a historical process rather than a single dated event.
No. Roman sources remembered an older foreigner or stranger sense before usage restricted the word toward a public or armed enemy.
The dossier separates the older outsider horizon from the later enemy-centered use.
No. Hotel and hospital are doublets: both reach Latin hospitāle, but hotel comes through French hôtel and Old French hostel while hospital comes through Anglo-French hospital.
Separate descendant edges converge at the shared Medieval Latin hospitāle node.
Merriam-Webster reports 1687 for the lodging noun, after French hôtel had developed from Old French hostel.
The source-reported year is retained as an attestation record, not upgraded into a directly inspected witness.
No. Latin homō and humus are sibling reflexes analyzed under the earth root; hūmānus belongs to the homō family.
The graph joins human and humus only at reconstructed ancestry.
No. Earthling is a modern gloss for reconstructed *(dh)ghom-on-, not a surviving Proto-Indo-European inscription.
Every reconstructed node remains visibly starred and the trail ends at an explicit boundary.
Yes. Merriam-Webster derives Latin humilis from humus, earth, and the comparative root appendix places the family under *dhghem-.
The graph encodes each stage while keeping the modern ethical senses separate from ancestry.
Merriam-Webster names Late Latin humiliatus, the past participle of humiliare; American Heritage summarizes Late Latin humiliāre, humiliāt-. These are compatible levels of the same formation, not evidence for two unrelated ancestries.
The dossier spine preserves the participle and the graph exposes the AHD verb-stem summary as a separately cited compatible route.
No. English humiliate passes through Late Latin humiliatus and humiliare, then Latin humilis. Humilis is formed from Latin humus; the modern English soil word is a separate later borrowing.
The graph reuses the Latin humus node but draws no edge from English humus to English humiliate.
No. Christian Latin and historical French include lowering, abasement, mortifying discipline, and self-humbling. Chaucer’s Middle English occurrence appears within a treatment of humility, while current American Heritage definitions center degradation, disgrace, and shame.
The dossier preserves the earlier humbling field on separate nodes and edges instead of projecting modern shame backward.
The documented chronology points the other way: Middle English humiliacioun is evidenced in Chaucer, whereas Merriam-Webster reports the English verb humiliate only circa 1534. Both English words descend through the Latin humilis family; the noun is not modeled as a modern English derivative of the later-attested verb.
The canonical graph joins the two English words at Late Latin humiliātus and humiliāre rather than drawing a false English verb-to-noun ancestry edge.
Not in every recorded Latin sense. Classical humilitās names physical lowness and low stature, then low rank, insignificance, meanness, or abjectness. Lewis and Short separately marks the good sense opposed to pride as ecclesiastical Latin.
The graph preserves classical and ecclesiastical sense nodes instead of projecting the later virtue backward onto every Latin occurrence.
No. American Heritage separates Latin humus, soil, from the Arabic and possibly Aramaic food word hummus.
This dossier promotes only the Latin soil noun.
No. Latin humus and homō are separate formations under *dhghem-; English human descends through hūmānus and homō.
The canonical graph joins the dossiers at the reconstructed root, never through a false direct edge.
No. English borrowed a Norse householder compound: hūs plus bōndi or būandi. Band is not a component.
The graph exposes house and householder and creates no band edge.
No. The earlier center was householder or master of a house; household and spouse senses overlapped before the modern specialization.
The semantic-change fields preserve the narrowing rather than projecting the modern relation backward.
Yes. Köbler reports five written inflectional readings at three Heliand loci, and Munich hotie and hotean are directly visible.
The dossier uses normalized hōti while preserving every reported surface form.
No. It is the starred headword of an Old Saxon entry whose B field lists Heliand forms; the entry separately labels Germanic *hwōtja- as etymology.
The interface does not move the trailing star backward in time.
Neither. It denotes three Heliand line loci; two loci have M and C readings, while one has C only, producing five witness readings.
The interface separates three loci from five readings.
No. They are manuscript M and C readings at the same Heliand 5183 locus. The same distinction applies to hotean and huotian at 5246.
Witness variation is not inflated into extra lexical occurrences.
Yes. Cgm 25 scan 150 visibly preserves hotie in the phrase an iuuuomu hugea hotie.
Only the observed form and bounded immediate context are marked inspected.
Yes. Cgm 25 scan 152 visibly preserves hotean in the phrase thurh hotean hugi.
The inspection does not select one ancestry hypothesis.
No. All three are source-reported through Köbler; the Cotton manuscript is cataloged separately, but no exact page pixels were inspected for these tokens.
A catalog record is not misrepresented as token inspection.
No. The Heliand work predates both copies, and the surviving witnesses are transmission objects rather than the adjective's origin event.
No first-known-use claim is made.
No. The reported forms are hotie, huotia, hotean, huotian, and huoti. The macronized citation form hōti is an editorial normalization.
Search uses the normalized lemma while witness cards show exact surfaces.
No. The located contexts concern hostile minds, hostile intent, and a ruler becoming hostile or enraged in mind. Those are compatible with hostility but do not force the modern noun hate into every token.
Token context and reconstructed family classification remain separate.
No such direct descent is claimed. UT places whet and other Germanic sharpen or incite reflexes under *kʷē̆d- / *kʷō̆d-; Köbler uses that etymon for hōti, making them proposed deeper relatives if his route is right.
The rabbit hole follows a shared proposed root, never an Old-Saxon-to-English arrow.
No. Heliand's place of poetic origin is unresolved, and the Munich and Cotton objects belong to different transmission settings.
Only the Corvey catalog attribution receives an approximate point.
No. They are semantic extensions within the image-and-likeness family; the later uses do not create separate ancestors.
Sense history stays on one canonical node while dated journey stages show the later expansions.
The morphology of intellegere is traditionally analyzed through inter- and legere, and selection informs the semantic history. That slogan is not a complete theory of cognition.
The edge carries the morphological insight and an explicit anti-essentialist confidence note.
The word already meant understanding and knowledge; news and strategic information developed from that information sense, later naming the services that gather it.
No. The adjective is borrowed from Latin intelligent-, intelligens; the English noun intelligence follows its own abstract-noun transmission through French and Latin intelligentia.
The graph connects both words at their Latin family without inventing an English noun-to-adjective derivation.
The cited Tupi gloss is broader: large carnivore. European languages specialized the borrowed name as the jaguar species label.
The semantic-change field records narrowing rather than projecting the modern zoological sense backward.
No. Hawaiian kapu reflects a documented historical *t to k development; POLLEX lists it as the Hawaiian reflex of the same Oceanic family.
The canonical graph preserves distinct attested nodes and one shared reconstruction.
No. English taboo is traced to Tongan tabu. Hawaiian kapu is a cognate reflex whose resemblance reveals family history, not the borrowing event.
Connection without direct descent is made explicit.
No. Old Turkic kayguk is documented centuries before the modern surface resemblance and belongs to a separate Turkic history.
The graph keeps the two boat families disconnected.
No. Kin continues Old English cynn and Proto-Germanic *kunja-. The Germanic king title *kuninga- is morphologically derived from that lineage base plus a person-forming suffix; neither modern English word directly descends from the other.
The dossiers share the canonical *kunja- node. No king-to-kin ancestry edge is drawn.
No. Old and Middle English records include kind, race, people, tribe, nation, lineage, generation, progeny, gender, species, category, and family. The modern relatives sense is a semantic narrowing, not the whole ancestral meaning.
The semantic change remains visible on the Old-to-Middle and Middle-to-modern edges.
No. Merriam-Webster gives the family noun through Middle English from Old English cynn, but derives the diminutive suffix through Middle English from Middle Dutch -kin and Old High German -chīn.
The suffix is not attached to this family graph and the dossier labels the homography explicitly.
No. Kin continues Germanic *kunja- from a *-yo- formation, while kind continues noun *kundjaz and adjective *kundiz from a *-t- formation. They are deep cousins that meet at *ǵenh₁-, not one modern word built by adding d to the other.
The canonical graph joins the dossiers only at the shared birth root and never draws a kin-to-kind derivation.
No. Old English gecynde is natural, native, innate, fitting, proper, or inherited by birth. Middle English evidence adds affectionate and benevolent uses, making modern moral kindness a semantic development rather than the original whole meaning.
The adjective branch exposes the semantic change separately from the noun lineage.
No. Alongside the compositional category construction, kind of has been reanalyzed as an approximator, hedge, downtoner, and pragmatic marker; reduced kinda represents that later constructional history.
A graph-only descendant edge records grammaticalization without making the pragmatic construction an ancestor of kind.
No. German Kind belongs to the comparative Germanic birth family, but it is a cognate branch rather than a donor into English. Similar form and a child sense do not establish a borrowing route.
German Kind remains a cited relative and never appears on the English ancestry spine.
No. The first component is kin, continuing Old English cynn. Kind follows a separate Germanic *kund- and Indo-European *gn̥ə-t- formation; the words meet only at the deeper birth root.
The graph connects kindred directly to cynn and reaches kind only by traversing the deeper shared *ǵenh₁- node.
No. Traugott explicitly identifies an intrusive d between n and r. The late Old English compound is cynræden / cynrēde and Middle English records include both kinrede and kindrede.
The modern-to-medieval edge labels the insertion; the Old English node contains no d.
No. It is the reduced relic of Old English -ræden, a condition or state-forming element. The wider pattern once made social and abstract nouns and survives principally in kindred and hatred.
The second compound edge descends through -ræden and never touches the color word red.
No. The inherited noun names kinship, family, lineage, and related people. Merriam-Webster analyzes the adjective as attributive use of that noun and reports it later than the noun.
The similarity sense is recorded as semantic development on the whole-word continuation edge.
No. King is inherited through Old English cyning from a Germanic kin formation. Latin rēx belongs to the separate straight, direct, and rule family. Translation equivalence does not create ancestry.
The dossiers remain in separate lexical families and are joined only by a sourced historical-context link.
No. Finnish borrowed the word from Germanic. Its conservative shape is evidence for reconstruction, not a donor on the English lineage.
Finnish is a cited descendant branch from the reconstructed node, never a parent of Old English.
No. The inherited ruler title is older; the game-piece and preeminence senses are semantic extensions documented in the modern entry.
The dossier preserves later semantic branches without projecting them backward into Proto-Germanic social life.
No. The histories share hlāf, loaf, but hlǣfdige has a kneading element where hlāford has guardian.
The shared canonical loaf node joins the words without collapsing their formations.
No. It is historical compound morphology, not a biological or prescriptive definition of women.
The dossier presents semantic history without turning etymology into essence.
No. Law comes through Old English lagu from Scandinavian; legal comes through Anglo-French and Latin legalis from lēx. Their shared modern subject matter is not an immediate genealogical relationship.
The dossiers remain separate until their explicitly competing deep routes are reached.
No. The set-down verb is inherited from Old English lecgan; the poem noun and non-clerical adjective come through distinct French, Latin, and Greek histories.
This dossier follows only the transitive verb and names the excluded homonyms explicitly.
They are historically related but grammatically distinct inherited verbs: lay is transitive and causative, while lie is intransitive; lay is also the standard past tense of lie, which creates modern ambiguity.
The graph connects the word family without collapsing the modern lexemes or their grammatical roles.
Neither. They are lexical cousins whose lineages converge at reconstructed *legh-. Law reaches it through a Scandinavian nominal formation; lay reaches it through an inherited causative verb.
The shared canonical root creates the connection without a false direct-parent edge.
The immediate Latin ancestor lectūra meant an act of reading. The instructional spoken discourse is a later semantic development.
No. legal is borrowed through Anglo-French from Latin lēgālis and lēx; English law has a separate Germanic and Scandinavian ancestry.
The graph models semantic neighbors separately from historical ancestors.
No. Medieval Latin legenda meant things to be read. The uncertainty or fictionality of a traditional story is a later development.
The secure formation is literal reading: Late Latin legibilis from legere “to read.” Discernible and understandable are later or extended senses, not the morphological source.
The dossier keeps figurative senses but does not project them backward.
No. English legislation is recorded by the seventeenth century, while Etymonline dates legislate to 1805 as a back-formation from legislation or legislator.
The graph runs from the Latin and French noun family toward English, not backward from the later verb.
Its secure ancestry points first to reading: Anglo-French leçon and Late Latin lectio, an act or selection of reading from legere. Instruction and learned-experience senses develop from that base.
The dossier models reading before instruction instead of projecting the modern classroom backward.
No. The adjective descends through Middle High German liep and Old High German liob. The noun Liebe continues a related abstract-noun formation analyzed as deadjectival within the older family.
The graph gives lieb its own inherited adjective route, connects Liebe through its distinct abstract-noun formation, and joins both only at the deeper desire-and-care family.
No. Dutch lief is an inherited Germanic adjective cognate with forms including Gothic liufs and German lieb; English love is a separate noun descendant in the same wider family.
The graph treats lief and love as cousins, not parent and child.
No. Project Wulfila links the normalized lemma to 33 inflected occurrences in surviving Gothic manuscripts. The citation form is inferred, while the lexeme and its inflections are attested.
SET-U stores liufs as an attested lexical headword, discloses the normalized citation-form issue, and reserves reconstructed status for Proto-Germanic *leubaz and PIE *lewbʰ-.
No. The animal word is Quechua through Spanish; the fire homonym is a separate Spanish entry from Latin flamma.
The animal sense has its own sense key and the fire word appears only as an unrelated homonym.
No. The inherited noun continues Middle English lof and Old English hlāf; the idle verb is a later probable back-formation from loafer.
The dossier promotes only the inherited bread noun and keeps the homonymous verb in the dispute record.
No. λόγος ranges across account, reckoning, explanation, speech, discourse, word, and reason; “logic” is one specialized descendant.
The node keeps a semantic field rather than a one-word gloss.
No. The recorded ancestry leads to Old English hlāford, a household compound of loaf and guardian.
Later religious and aristocratic uses do not erase the household formation.
No. The morphology is established; a literal social ritual for every speaker and use is not.
The interface separates lexical morphology from an overconfident reconstruction of daily practice.
Proto-Indo-European did not preserve a single lexeme matching the entire modern English category LOVE.
The graph uses a semantic field rather than a one-word equivalence.
No. Male comes through French from Latin masculus and mās; mal- comes from a different Latin family headed by malus, bad.
The graph has no mal- ancestry edge.
No. They have different Latin ancestries. Their modern visual pairing comes partly from male reshaping female’s English spelling.
A cross-dossier influence edge preserves the contact without merging their families.
No. Its principal older sense was human being or person; wer and wīf could mark the sex distinction.
The dossier retains both the generic and later male-specific senses.
Not in the reviewed American Heritage analysis. It publishes man-¹, human being, separately from men-¹, to think.
No graph edge merges the two roots merely because modern explanations sometimes associate humanity with thought.
No. Old English mūs continues a Germanic branch; Latin mūs is a cognate parallel branch.
The graph joins English and Latin only at PIE *mūs-, never by a false Latin-to-English edge.
The cross-branch mouse word is reconstructed as PIE *mūs-, while any deeper ancestor remains outside the reviewed evidence.
The reconstruction is admitted as probable and ends at an explicit UNKNOWN boundary.
Latin musculus is morphologically the diminutive of mūs “mouse.”
The morphological derivation is treated as established; this does not settle the exact visual analogy.
The anatomical English word passed through Middle English and Old French from Latin musculus.
The French borrowing path is retained for the anatomical dossier.
The English words have distinct immediate histories but converge in the Latin musculus / mūscula family derived from mūs.
The graph shares the Latin musculus, Latin mūs, and PIE *mūs- nodes while keeping the English and Middle English senses separate.
No. English borrowed the learned noun through Late Latin nescientia, itself built through nesciens and nescīre from the Latin negative plus scīre.
The graph joins nescience and science at Latin scīre without making either English word the parent of the other.
No. Merriam-Webster reports early foolish, wanton, silly, and simple senses; pleasant or agreeable becomes prominent much later.
The graph separates the medieval and modern sense profiles.
No. English borrowed a learned Latin all-knowing form; the compound analysis belongs inside Latin, not as a new English coinage from the modern noun science.
The dossier connects the word to science at Latin scientia without inventing an English compound.
No. Its documented Latin structure is prae- “before” plus scīre “to know”: foreknowledge, not a sight-word formation.
The modern foresight metaphor remains a meaning, not the word's morphology.
No. Greek prologos is pro- “before” plus logos “speech or discourse”: a speech beforehand. English -logy belongs to the same wider family but is not the component analyzed here.
The graph connects the words at logos without replacing one suffix with another.
No. Proverb, the traditional saying, is recorded from the fourteenth century through Latin proverbium; pro-verb, a grammatical substitute, is separately dated to 1907.
The hyphenated form remains a relative, not an ancestor node.
No. The specialist philological study reconstructs independent Eskimo and Turkic histories and explicitly rejects genealogical or borrowing scenarios.
A sourced context link records the seductive resemblance as non-ancestry.
No. Dubrovnik’s 1377 law required thirty days; the interval was later extended to forty, which supplied the enduring name.
The timeline explicitly separates the first isolation law from the forty-based word.
No. Realm descends through a government noun from Latin regimen, but its medieval form was altered under the influence of the royal adjective.
An analogical side edge records influence without replacing the main lineage.
No. Its oldest reported English horizon is kingdom; sphere, domain, and biogeographic meanings are extensions.
The semantic history proceeds from governed territory to generalized domain.
No. They are separate medieval English arrivals that converge on Latin rēgālis and rēx.
The canonical graph keeps distinct headword paths and shared Latin nodes.
No. The reported medieval sense centers on living under or according to a rule; ordinary and standard are later extensions.
The dossier retains modern normality while exposing the earlier rule-centered stage.
No. Its Late Latin adjective descends from rēgula, whose older semantic range includes a bar, rod, or straightedge.
The connection is modeled through the historical noun, not as a folk resemblance.
No. The reported meanings include govern, direct, order, and adjust; legal control is one major branch.
The dossier does not reduce the word to modern administrative regulation.
No. The reviewed route passes through Latin rēgula, Late Latin regulāre, and its participle regulātus.
Every intermediate formation remains a clickable node.
No. Old English rīce is glossed strong or powerful, and the wider family centers on rule and kingship before the modern abundance field.
Older power does not invalidate modern wealth; it explains the semantic path.
No. The reviewed history joins straight, correct, just, proper, and directional senses inside one inherited family.
The dossier records semantic plurality instead of replacing the modern moral sense with a geometric slogan.
No. American Heritage treats the political sense as a later seating-based development in legislative assemblies.
The political branch is not projected into the reconstructed straight-and-direct root.
Karel introduced and popularized it in R.U.R., but Merriam-Webster reports that his brother Josef suggested the name from robota.
No. Robot descends immediately from Czech compulsory labor. Orphan belongs to a remote comparative family around transferred status, dependency, and bereavement; a distant root relationship is not a modern definition.
No. They are not close derivatives of each other, but both occupy documented branches under the reconstructed straight-and-direct root.
The graph shows deep cousinhood and no false royal-to-right edge.
No. The reported ancestry and first English sense are monarch-centered; magnificence is a semantic extension.
The modern evaluative sense remains visible as an extension.
No. Latin rēgula meant a straightedge or ruler as well as a rule, and the physical measuring sense survives in English.
The abstract and physical branches remain visible without claiming one modern sense is false.
No. They are deep cousins: rule comes through French and Latin rēgula, while right follows Germanic *rehtaz.
The canonical graph joins the branches only at *h₃reg-.
No. The comparative evidence derives Old Irish rí and Latin rēx as cognates in separate Celtic and Italic branches.
No Latin-to-Irish borrowing edge is drawn.
No. They are related through different Celtic formations: rí continues *rīx-s, while rich travels through the derivative *rīg-yo- borrowed into Germanic.
The paths meet at the king grade without a false rí-to-rich edge.
No. Sanskrit rājā and Latin rēx are cognates in separate Indo-Aryan and Italic branches under the same reconstructed king grade.
The graph joins the branches only at reconstructed ancestry.
Not exactly. Rājā is the nominative singular; the consonant stem is rājan-, which appears across the paradigm and compounds.
The dossier makes the inflectional step clickable instead of hiding it in prose.
No. In the Latin nominative, stem rēg- combines with -s; g devoices to k before s and the /ks/ cluster is spelled x. The genitive rēgis preserves visible g.
The dossier reveals x as a surface cluster without calling g silent or treating spelling as the whole explanation.
No. Rēx and rēgis are inflected forms in one paradigm. The graph uses the genitive to expose the stem, not as a chronological parent word.
The edge is typed inflection and its chronology note explicitly denies case-to-case ancestry.
No. The reviewed comparative sources treat the Latin and Celtic forms as inherited cognates in separate Italic and Celtic branches; Celtic raises inherited *ē to *ī.
The graph joins the forms at reconstructed ancestry and draws no Latin-to-Celtic borrowing edge.
No. Both descend from Latin rēgālis, but royal crosses through Anglo-French roial or real while regal has Old French, Anglo-French, and direct-Latin transmission reported by different authorities.
The descendants remain separate dossiers even though they share the Latin king adjective and noun.
No ancient source supports the familiar claim. Pliny notes only an undefined connection between salt and military honors or payments.
The viral payment-in-salt story is excluded.
No. Salt and salary belong to the same comparative salt family, but the real lexical kinship does not establish the viral literal-payment story.
The graph connects the words while the claim layer rejects the unsupported payroll narrative.
No. Its earliest English and Latin histories center on knowledge, learning, awareness, and branches of knowledge.
The semantic timeline shows later specialization without erasing surviving broad senses.
No. The English words are cousins. Select comes from Latin selectus and seligere; lecture and lesson take other Latin formations that independently reach legere.
The graph joins the dossiers at Latin legere without making one modern English word the ancestor of another.
No. English shah and English check are cousins: both reach back independently to Persian šāh, while check travels through chess, Arabic, and French.
The canonical Persian node is shared without falsely making one English word the parent of the other.
Rejected. The phonology, morphology, and documentary record do not support it.
Excluded as a folk etymology.
No. The Tongan reflexes and wider Oceanic reconstruction carry a semantic field that includes prohibited, under ritual restriction, sacred, holy, and consecrated.
The graph and truth ledger retain sacredness and prohibition together instead of back-projecting only the modern casual English sense.
No. Merriam-Webster identifies Tongan tabu as the English donor. Māori tapu is a related Oceanic reflex, not the borrowing source.
The canonical graph joins the words only at reconstructed *tampu.
No. Te Aka defines a culturally specific field spanning sacredness, restriction, being set apart, prohibition, atua protection, and social or environmental responsibility.
The dossier does not reduce tapu to its casual English loanword descendant.
No. WALS documents a powerful distributional tendency, not a universal law: 110 sampled languages have Sinitic cha-derived forms, 84 have Min Nan te-derived forms, and 36 belong to neither class.
SET-U presents maritime and overland routes as tendencies and keeps the “other” class visible.
No. English ten is inherited through Old English and Germanic, while Latin decem is a cognate from the same Indo-European numeral.
The global graph joins them at the reconstructed root without making Latin the parent of English ten.
No. Tree and true share the reconstructed *deru- family but travel through different Germanic formations and different senses.
The graph joins them at *deru- only.
No. The published reconstructed semantic range begins with being firm, solid, or steadfast and extends to wood and tree.
The dossier preserves a semantic range rather than inventing one “literal true meaning.”
No. Troth continues a Middle English and Old English fidelity noun and is reported in English from the twelfth century.
The rare modern register does not make the word historically recent.
No. Its reported meanings include fidelity, loyalty, good faith, pledged word, and betrothal.
The marriage sense is modeled as one specialization rather than the whole ancestry.
No. The reviewed history continues Middle English trewes from Old English trēow “fidelity” inside an inherited Germanic pledge branch.
No French donor edge is drawn.
No. Modern singular truce continues Middle English trewes, explicitly analyzed as a plural of trewe “agreement.”
The graph records inflectional reanalysis instead of silently skipping from trewe to truce.
No. The reviewed English history foregrounds faithful, steadfast, loyal, and trustworthy senses before and beside modern factual accuracy.
The dossier retains semantic plurality instead of declaring the current factual sense false.
No. True and tree are parallel descendants in different branches that meet at reconstructed *deru-; the modern tree noun is not a parent of true.
The canonical graph shares only the deep root and draws no tree-to-true ancestry edge.
No. The historical noun centers on confidence and reliance; legal trust is one later semantic institution within the word’s wider range.
The dossier does not mistake one prominent modern legal sense for the donor meaning.
No. Merriam-Webster reports the earliest located English use under fidelity or constancy, while modern truth also covers factual correspondence.
The semantic record treats fidelity as history without using etymology to erase the current meaning.
No. The asterisk marks a reconstructed comparative form rather than an attested token.
The trail ends at a boundary after the starred root.
No at the level of word formation. The lexical sources analyze a human stem -ntu and an abstract-noun prefix ubu-; the familiar sentence is a philosophical gloss rather than a component-by-component translation.
The graph exposes the morphemes while keeping philosophical interpretations distinct from lexical morphology.
No. Latin verbum broadly meant word, utterance, expression, language, or discourse and also developed the specialized grammatical sense.
Two sense-specific Latin nodes preserve the specialization.
The reviewed route is Middle English from Anglo-French from Latin, not a one-hop direct Latin borrowing.
The dossier keeps the Anglo-French node instead of compressing it away.
No. The oldest structural center is Latin verbum plus -alis, of or relating to words; the spoken contrast is one later English sense among several.
The semantic-change record preserves plurality instead of choosing one supposedly true meaning.
No. Latin -alis is a derivational component of verbalis; the lexical base verbum and the suffix have separate graph branches.
The main ancestry follows verbum while a canonical component edge exposes -alis.
No. Merriam-Webster reports the adverb in the fifteenth century and the adjective in 1613.
The dossier headword is modeled first as an adverb and retains the later adjective as semantic history.
No. Its Medieval Latin formation and older Latin phrase family express distributive exactness: word by word.
The graph follows the word noun while the suffix branch explains the adverbial distribution.
No. Current and historical Dutch evidence covers persons, groups, political or military opponents, figurative threats, diseases, animals, and plant threats.
The headword gloss keeps enemy or opponent broad and does not force every token into private hatred.
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-.
The dossier labels the parent with an asterisk and states literal one-who-hates as a word-formation analysis, not an attested Dutch sentence.
No. ONW classifies the Old Dutch noun as synchronically unsegmented and says the corresponding verb is no longer known in Dutch; ANW classifies current vijand as a masculine noun.
The dossier uses fossilized or lexicalized participle, never a modern participial parse.
Yes. VMNW has a dedicated Devil branch with multiple located thirteenth-century Lucifer and evil-spirit passages. ONW also lists a possible earlier Devil record.
Secure Middle Dutch Devil evidence is kept separate from the uncertain Old Dutch reading.
No. ONW labels the records with much later copy dates, including 1595–1605 and circa 1598. This review inspected the lexical corpus record, not an original tenth-century object.
All Wachtendonck Psalms attestations remain source-reported and receive no facsimile or witness-inspection record.
No. The inherited enemy noun comes from the Germanic one-who-hates formation. Devil is an attested religious sense inside Dutch, not the origin of the agent noun.
The leaderboard reveal says may have preserved part of the form, never created the word.
No. Dutch retained ordinary enemy or opponent as the central modern sense. The Devil branch is historical; English fiend developed a different modern semantic center.
The graph joins the words at reconstructed ancestry and does not copy English semantic history into Dutch.
Not as the corresponding inherited verb. ONW says the verb matching Old High German fīēn and Gothic fijan is no longer known in Dutch.
The verb is shown only as a starred Proto-Germanic node, while modern vijand remains a noun.
No borrowing is established. Old Dutch fīunt / fīant, German Feind, English fiend, Gothic fijands, and the Nordic forms are collateral inherited descendants.
The canonical graph reuses the shared reconstructed nodes and draws no German-to-Dutch or English-to-Dutch arrow.
No. It is the oldest attestation range published by ONW, not a birth certificate. The inherited formation must predate the daughter-language record, and the surviving sources are incomplete.
The timeline labels first reviewed corpus evidence and never calls it coinage.
Yes at the word-formation level. EWN, WNT, and MNW independently analyze the noun as an old present participle of the Germanic love verb.
Historical morphology does not impose a compositional modern definition.
No. EWN compares their parallel participial formation, but the reviewed vijand dossier follows a different hate verb base.
A context link records the mirror without merging families.
No single unchanged pronunciation is established. WNT discusses reduced vrind and vrund variants, while the current reference gives one-syllable /vrint/.
Spelling continuity is not phonetic stasis.
No. It is a present-day pronunciation record only. Historical sound values are reconstructed from written and comparative evidence.
No current audio is projected backward.
No. WNT and MNW document relation, lover, ally, patron, address, mediator, and supporter senses.
The modern core does not erase older branches.
No. Historical morphology and current lexical meaning are different layers.
The graph prevents an etymological-fallacy slogan.
No reviewed earlier node clears the evidence boundary.
The route ends at UNKNOWN.
No. Old English wīf and Middle English wif could mean woman as well as wife.
The wife dossier shares its Old English node with the first component of woman.
No. The historical form is Old English wīfman, built from wīf, woman or wife, and mann, human being or person.
The graph exposes both real components and creates no womb edge.
No. In this compound man carries its older human-being or person sense.
The woman and man dossiers share the exact Old English human-person node.
No. English word is inherited through Old English and Germanic; Latin verbum is an akin or cognate branch under the shared speaking root, not the donor.
The canonical graph joins word and verbum only at reconstruction and never draws a Latin-to-English borrowing edge.
No. The asterisk marks a comparative reconstruction, and the reviewed source stops at the speaking root rather than identifying any spoken first word.
The dossier ends at a knowledge boundary after the starred root.
The sources do not license that projection. Duden marks modern Weib increasingly discriminatory, while Old High German records preserve wīb in ordinary old-woman and married-woman expressions.
The dossier separates stages of semantic history instead of turning a current judgment into an ancient essence.
No. English borrowed Turkish yoğurt, and a Turkish verbal derivation is supported; neither fact alone establishes the prehistoric inventor or birthplace of fermented milk.
The dossier separates linguistic lineage from food-history claims.
The ultimate source is Chinese, but Boz argues that Persian is the more credible bridge into historical Turkey Turkish. “From Chinese” is genealogically true and historically incomplete.
The relation type names the Persian relay and retains probable confidence.
No. CNRTL treats the earliest records as a title reference and contextual wordplay distinct from the modern scientific sense.
Journey stages and witness notes keep spelling attestation separate from semantic identity.
CNRTL reports a generalized research sense from 1756 but notes that the word continued to be called an art; it reports an explicit science definition only in 1836.
The dossier resists assigning one false birth date to a discipline that stabilized in stages.
The transparent modern relationship does not describe the reported historical route. Both French references call étymologique a borrowing from Latin etymologicus.
The canonical lineage begins with a borrowing edge rather than an unsupported internal French derivation.
No. CNRTL’s earliest source-reported use around 1550 concerns compound names said to reveal their true sense; the current analytical sense is broader.
The semantic shift is exposed on the French borrowing edge and in the dated witness.
No. Both CNRTL and the Académie explicitly define the explanatory form as attested or reconstructed/hypothetical.
The dossier can therefore point to a reconstructed form without presenting that form as attested.
Yes. LSJ supplies a full neuter-noun entry, Doric κᾶδος, and citations from Homer onward; Scaife independently exposes the Iliad 1.445 line.
The dossier distinguishes the lexeme from reconstructed ancestors and modern transliterations.
No. LSJ separates care or concern, anxiety and grief, troubles, funeral rites and mourning, an object of care, and connection by marriage.
The headword summary preserves the semantic network instead of choosing one slogan.
Not in the reviewed Greek lexical record. Its central cited meanings concern care, grief, trouble, mourning, funeral obligation, and affinity.
Germanic hate appears only through a qualified deeper comparison.
Yes. LSJ cites Herodotus, Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles, Philo, and Thucydides for affinity or contracting marriage.
The graph treats affinity as an attested sense, not the noun's only meaning.
Yes. LSJ supplies a dedicated sub-sense with Homeric, lyric, tragic, historical, oratorical, philosophical, and inscriptional evidence.
Mourning is one attested branch beside care and affinity.
Yes according to LSJ: Helen is an object of care in Agamemnon 699 with a play on the marriage-connection sense.
The record remains source-reported because no manuscript object was inspected.
No. Merriam-Webster uses the Latin-script transliteration kêdos for the same Greek noun that LSJ indexes as κῆδος.
A source-cited candidate resolution prevents a duplicate dossier.
No separate lexeme is established. LSJ prints it as the Doric form of κῆδος and cites it in Pindar.
A graph-only dialect-variant edge preserves the form without inflating the dossier count.
No. The dialectal vowel pattern supports Greek-internal history, but it does not by itself establish the proposed root, suffix, or non-Greek cognates.
Sound history and family membership remain separate claim layers.
No. It is a normalized scholarly approximation based on the written form and historical phonology, not audio from an Ancient Greek speaker.
The pronunciation field states its evidentiary status.
No. It proves a line in a modern digital critical text and an ancient textual tradition, not the earliest surviving physical token or the word's invention.
The attestation is a corpus record rather than a directly inspected primary object.
No. The word spans dialects, genres, authors, and a long manuscript tradition. No reviewed evidence identifies one innovation point.
No map coordinate is fabricated.
No. The displayed root is already a disputed reconstruction and no still-deeper form clears the review boundary.
The route ends at UNKNOWN rather than manufacturing deeper certainty.
The reviewed Liddell–Scott entry treats μῦς as one lexical entry with both rodent and body-muscle senses, and Modern Greek explicitly derives both learned senses from Ancient Greek.
The graph keeps the two senses together in Greek while distinguishing the parallel Latin and Germanic branches.
No secure one-hop event is established. Vasmer’s etymology routes the word through Turkic-speaking networks before reaching Chinese ch’a.
The dossier distinguishes ultimate origin from transmission history.
The lexeme continues, but modern Eastern Armenian normally writes ստույգ; the dossier displays the classical form because that is the comparative form in the historical literature.
Orthographic chronology is disclosed in the form note rather than erased.
No. Rekhta’s historical note reports older چا and چاہ spellings and says modern standard usage has largely converged on چائے.
Historical spelling evidence is preserved as attestations rather than invented ancestor nodes.
No. The report proves learned awareness and discussion of use in China and Tibet; Iranica says this does not establish broad Persian consumption at that time.
The attestation is labeled a secondary report of awareness, not a Persian first-use token.
No. LSJ classifies it as a poetic reduplicated form for ἔτυμος, not an older proto-form from which ἔτυμος descends.
The canonical edge points from the longer poetic form to the shorter base and keeps the separate reconstructed path below it.
No. It meant true, real, or actual; only its substantivized neuter developed a technical true-sense meaning, and ἐτυμολογία is a later compound.
The dossier makes the semantic and morphological steps separately clickable.
EDITORIAL RULE
Competing claims are stored as distinct records, never averaged into a vague paragraph.
Established, probable, proposed, speculative, and boundary are not interchangeable.
Every dispute has direct source links, locators, stances, and notes explaining what each work establishes or challenges.
When the evidence does not select a secure ancestor, the correct parent is UNKNOWN.