*SET-U

GRAPH-WIDE SEARCH

MEASURE THE GRAPH ↗

NOT JUST A DICTIONARY LOOKUP

6 EVIDENCE COLLECTIONS

SEARCH
THE GRAPH.

Find a modern word—or search sideways through reconstructed roots, historical forms, meanings, languages, scholars, sources, claims, disputes, and witnesses.

WIKTIONARY VIA KAIKKI / WIKTEXTRACT

Imported dictionary evidence

SOURCE-IMPORTED · UNREVIEWED

These are source reports, not reviewed *SET-U ancestry. A list of templates or numbered etymologies is not an ancestor chain. Scholarly disagreements remain in the original source text.

35,981 English word records · 45,491 etymology sections in this online subset

PARTIAL ENGLISH COVERAGE · FULL CORPUS REMAINS LOCAL

1 source section across 1 headword matching “Boar”. These are separate from the reviewed results below.

Open the permanent entry for boar →
boarEnglish (en) · Unnumbered etymologySource text

From Middle English bor, boor, from Old English bār, from Proto-West Germanic *bair.

Original Wiktionary entry and references ↗

From Wiktionary contributors; extracted by Tatu Ylonen / Wiktextract / Kaikki.org. Extraction source · CC-BY-SA-4.0. Selected source text is reformatted for display; language and section identity are retained.

Source dump: 2026-10-01 · Extraction: 2026-10-30. These dates identify a dump snapshot, not an individual page revision.

Snapshot checksums and coverage
SOURCE SHA-256
5ff2c072f8099f2d2ce484bd6957bf179f046d2ad37bc36555edf8bb84cb5291
CORPUS SHA-256
c4c2a77325141846709230e11c2959332acd630d53e52905b72d36211251b081
IMPORT RUN
73216b9a9b78ed3830994bf853103716f5a4dc57099e371e9f8fdc468facca26
SUBSET SELECTION
English-only: shortest normalized query first, then binary lexical order; complete word-language and case-variant groups only. This is a bounded online subset, not the full acquired corpus.

INDEPENDENT SOURCE LIBRARY

More sources for this spelling

These are spelling matches, not a claim of identical senses or agreement. Historical accounts retain their own editions and limits; none is automatically promoted into reviewed ancestry.

Browse the independently attributed sources →
24REVIEWED RESULTS
6WORD DOSSIERS
3HISTORICAL NODES
0SOURCES
14CLAIMS
1WITNESSES
01

MODERN ENTRY POINTS

WORD DOSSIERS

6
02

ATTESTED / RECONSTRUCTED / BOUNDARY

HISTORICAL FORMS

3
03

WHERE INTERPRETATION IS TESTED

CLAIMS & DISPUTES

14

SCHOLARLY DISPUTES / 12

resolvedestablishedposition text

Did every Germanic cognate preserve the same semantic history?

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.

resolvedestablishedposition text

Does modern Freund literally mean someone currently loving?

No. The participial source is diachronic morphology; contemporary dictionaries give lexical friend, partner, supporter, and ally senses.

resolvedestablishedposition text

Could medieval haʒ describe friendly competition?

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.

resolvedestablishedposition text

Were Roman calculations literally made with stones?

Latin calculus did name a pebble used on a counting board, and the computation sense developed from that practice.

resolvedestablishedposition text

Does Portuguese chá disprove the sea-versus-land rule?

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.

resolvedestablishedposition text

Does the root reveal that every enemy is truly a hater?

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.

resolvedestablishedposition text

Does properly a hater define every fjándi referent?

No. It is a historical word-formation gloss, not a psychological claim about every enemy, demon, god, animal, object, or insult target.

resolvedestablishedposition text

Was kinship the recorded Scandinavian center?

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.

resolvedestablishedposition text

Does the root reveal that every enemy truly hates?

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.

resolvedestablishedposition text

Does the etymology prove that every enemy truly hates?

No. Historical word formation does not determine the psychology of every referent. The corpus includes singular, plural, religious, military, and collective opponents.

resolvedestablishedposition text

Does ONP's sense order prove a chronological semantic sequence?

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.

resolvedestablishedposition text

Did hatia mean only inward hatred?

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.

CONTRARIAN TRUTHS / 2

RANK 211GRADE A−ranked reveal

Higher mathematics began with a pebble.

Latin calculus named a counting-board pebble and a calculation. Its deeper stone ancestry is still disputed between a limestone derivation and a possible shared Mediterranean substrate source.

04

BOOKS / DICTIONARIES / ARTICLES / DATABASES

SOURCES

0

No reviewed record in this collection contains “boar.” Absence describes this graph, not all of linguistic scholarship.

05

FIRST USES & HISTORICAL OBJECTS

ATTESTATION WITNESSES

1
06

SEARCH IS DISCOVERY, NOT PROOF

EVERY RESULT OPENS A PERMANENT EVIDENCE RECORD.

Matching text only locates a record. It does not raise confidence, settle a dispute, establish cognacy, or turn a source report into direct inspection. Follow the result into its citations and editorial limits.