GRAPH-WIDE SEARCH
MEASURE THE GRAPH ↗NOT JUST A DICTIONARY LOOKUP
6 EVIDENCE COLLECTIONSSEARCH
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
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 LOCAL2 source sections across 1 headword matching “Claim”. These are separate from the reviewed results below.
claimEnglish (en) · Unnumbered etymologySource text
Etymology tree Proto-Indo-European *kelh₁- Proto-Indo-European *-m- Proto-Indo-European *kl̥h₁m- Proto-Italic *klām-der. Proto-Indo-European *-h₂ Proto-Indo-European *-éh₂ Proto-Indo-European *-yéti Proto-Indo-European *-eh₂yéti Proto-Indo-European *-h₂tiinflu. Proto-Italic *-ājō Proto-Italic *-āō Latin -ō Latin clamāre Old French clamerbor. Middle English claimen English claim From Middle English claimen, borrowed from Old French clamer (“to call, name, send for”), from Latin clāmō, clāmāre (“to call, cry out”), from Proto-Indo-European *kelh₁- (“to shout”), which is imitative. See also Lithuanian kalba (“language”), Old English hlōwan (“to low, make a noise like a cow”), Old High German halan (“to call”), Ancient Greek καλέω (kaléō, “to call, convoke”), κλέδον (klédon, “report, fame”), κέλαδος (kélados, “noise”), Middle Irish cailech (“cock”), Latin calō (“to call out, announce solemnly”), Sanskrit उषःकल (uṣaḥkala, “cock”, literally “dawn-calling”). Cognate with Spanish llamar and clamar.
Original Wiktionary entry and references ↗claimEnglish (en) · Unnumbered etymologySource text
Etymology tree Proto-Indo-European *kelh₁- Proto-Indo-European *-m- Proto-Indo-European *kl̥h₁m- Proto-Italic *klām-der. Proto-Indo-European *-h₂ Proto-Indo-European *-éh₂ Proto-Indo-European *-yéti Proto-Indo-European *-eh₂yéti Proto-Indo-European *-h₂tiinflu. Proto-Italic *-ājō Proto-Italic *-āō Latin -ō Latin clamāre Old French clamerbor. Middle English claimen English claim From Middle English claimen, borrowed from Old French clamer (“to call, name, send for”), from Latin clāmō, clāmāre (“to call, cry out”), from Proto-Indo-European *kelh₁- (“to shout”), which is imitative. See also Lithuanian kalba (“language”), Old English hlōwan (“to low, make a noise like a cow”), Old High German halan (“to call”), Ancient Greek καλέω (kaléō, “to call, convoke”), κλέδον (klédon, “report, fame”), κέλαδος (kélados, “noise”), Middle Irish cailech (“cock”), Latin calō (“to call out, announce solemnly”), Sanskrit उषःकल (uṣaḥkala, “cock”, literally “dawn-calling”). Cognate with Spanish llamar and clamar.
Original Wiktionary entry and references ↗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 →018
MODERN ENTRY POINTS
WORD DOSSIERS
Middle Irish noundossier summary
cais
eDIL separates two Irish headwords written cais. The first, also recorded as caise, is explicitly explained both as love and as hate; its cited passages and glossary equations range from searc and grádh "love" to miscais and mioscais "hatred", with context deciding individual readings. One Éigse line is tentatively translated so that the same visible form occurs on both sides: "my love ... is met by hatred(?)". The question mark matters. The second eDIL headword cais means "eye" and is excluded from this semantic lineage. These records establish a remarkable lexicographic opposition, not one timeless essence, a chronology from love to hate, or proof that every occurrence belongs to one historically indivisible sense. John T. Koch compares the noun with Proto-Celtic *katsi- < *kad-t/si- and a wider *kad- family, but that ancestry and its proposed Germanic comparison remain open. eDIL itself generally supplies etymologies only selectively. No manuscript pixels were directly inspected, no earliest-use or historical-frequency claim is made, and no exact pronunciation is invented.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗English noundossier summary
fiend
An inherited English noun whose earliest recorded sense was enemy or foe, not demon. Old English fēond belonged to a Germanic lexicalized one-who-hates formation; Middle English fẹ̄nd preserved enemy, Satan, demon, possession, and monster senses across extensive spelling variation; modern fiend continues the same English line. OED’s revised 2026 entry marks the literal enemy sense obsolete after the medieval record, explains the Devil as the ultimate Enemy, and documents long-versus-short vowel competition before the long vowel became dominant by the eighteenth century. The Middle English Dictionary independently exposes 188 quotations across eight senses without claiming a complete corpus.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Danish common-gender noundossier summary
fjende
Modern Danish fjende is the ordinary noun for a person, state, force, ideological opponent, or figurative thing that harms something else. Den Danske Ordbog derives it from Old Norse fjándi, compares German Feind, and identifies the older formation as a present participle of a verb corresponding to Old Norse fjá, to hate or persecute. Gammeldansk Ordbog records fiende broadly from 1100–1300. Ordbog over det danske Sprog preserves fiende, finde, and related spellings, an ordinary enemy sense, military and animal uses, abstract threats, and a special religious Devil branch. Holbergordbog shows that Fiende could still scan as either three syllables or two, alongside Fiænde, Finde, Fînde, and clipped Fiend. The word is therefore a grammatical fossil, not a current psychological definition: a lexicalized one-who-hates became the ordinary Danish enemy noun and accumulated broad contextual work. The current pronunciations are dictionary records, not retrojections into medieval Danish. No manuscript or print object is claimed as directly inspected.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Old Norse masculine noundossier summary
fjándi
Old Norse fjándi is a masculine noun whose inherited shape still exposes a prehistoric agent formation. Cleasby and Vigfússon compare Gothic fiands, Old English feond, German Feind, Swedish fiende, and Danish fjende, identify the nd as participial, and gloss the older formation as properly a hater. They then distinguish the ordinary enemy sense from a post-Christian fiend development. The University of Copenhagen Dictionary of Old Norse Prose supplies 222 citations and six semantic zones: enemy or opponent; devil, monster, or demon; evil spirit; pagan god; the Devil or Satan; and a derogatory term for a hated or bewitched person, animal, or object. Lexicon Poeticum independently exposes 49 poetic records, including source-reported tenth-century enemy uses and later Christian fiend uses, while warning that its concordance and dates require checking. The noun therefore does not possess one timeless true meaning: an inherited lexicalized hater became an ordinary enemy word, and the branch later accumulated several demonic and derogatory senses. The displayed pronunciation is an editorial normalized approximation, not recorded historical audio. No underlying manuscript object is claimed as directly inspected in this dossier.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Old Frisian weak verbdossier summary
hatia
Old Frisian hatia is a weak verb whose lexicographic field extends beyond an inward feeling. Hofmann and Popkema give hate or reject, damage, and a feud-language expression for harming or pursuing someone as an enemy. A May 2026 Corpus Oudfries search for word or lemma hatia returns six records in 235,462 tokens, but those are not six instances of this verb. Buma's critical note on Brokmer B 101 explicitly identifies its written hatia as atia "rear" with prothetic h, and Nijdam translates the passage as a poor mother being unable to feed her children. That token is excluded from the hate lineage. The five relevant corpus records occur in legal, road, family, and theological contexts: forms hatijen, hatie, hata, and hatien can concern harming or hindering on a road, a writing or event going against someone, or God hating perjury, lying speech, and false witnesses. The current corpus count is a bounded research surface, not a frequency estimate for medieval speech or a claim about every surviving witness. The underlying manuscripts were not directly inspected for this dossier, no earliest-use claim is made, and no exact historical pronunciation is invented.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Dutch masculine nouncontrarian claim
vijand
The ordinary Dutch noun for an enemy or opponent descends through Middle Dutch viant or vient and Old Dutch fīunt or fīant from a Germanic present-participial formation: literally the hating one. ONW counts twenty-six Old Dutch records and says the corresponding hate verb is no longer known in Dutch; VMNW counts 407 thirteenth-century records across enemy, Devil, and monster senses. Several Dutch etymologists propose that the medieval use for the Devil helped preserve the word’s full ending, unlike vriend, but they mark that explanation as possible or probable rather than demonstrated. The earliest Old Dutch Devil reading is itself textually disputed, and the Wachtendonck Psalms witnesses are later copies, not directly inspected tenth-century objects.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗nouncontrarian claim
yogurt
English yogurt, recorded by 1625, is a borrowing of Turkish yoğurt. Scholarship relates the noun to the Turkish verb yoğurmak, but the age of the food itself is a separate historical question.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Ancient Greek neuter noundossier summary
κῆδος
Ancient Greek κῆδος is an attested neuter noun whose lexical record spans care or concern, anxiety and grief, troubles, mourning and funeral rites, an object of care, and connection by marriage. LSJ documents the Doric variant κᾶδος, Homeric plural forms such as κήδεα or elided κήδεʼ, an Aeschylean play between Helen as an object of care and marriage connection, and a warning that some marriage-based readings of Homeric passages are wrong. Comparative sources place the noun beneath a proposed *ḱh₂d-es- formation and *ḱeh₂d- base alongside Celtic and Germanic material, but the semantic unity of care, grief, battle, hostility, pursuit, and hate remains disputed. The dossier preserves the Greek semantic network, the proposed ancestry, and the explicit boundary as separate claim layers.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗020
ATTESTED / RECONSTRUCTED / BOUNDARY
HISTORICAL FORMS
No reviewed record in this collection contains “claim.” Absence describes this graph, not all of linguistic scholarship.
0318
WHERE INTERPRETATION IS TESTED
CLAIMS & DISPUTES
SCHOLARLY DISPUTES / 12
openprobableposition text
Did -rīx mean exactly “king” in every compound name?
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.
openprobableposition text
Did candidates claim moral purity?
The whitened toga is historical and lexical. Reading it as a guaranteed moral-purity claim goes beyond what the word formation alone proves.
openprobableposition text
Does the specialist title begin in 1604 or the 1630s?
Merriam-Webster reports 1604; Etymonline reports the 1630s. These are different source horizons, not necessarily irreconcilable claims about the same underlying object.
openestablishedposition text
Is the c1200 homily token the earliest surviving use?
Not established. It is an early directly inspected object, but the review did not compare every manuscript witness, poetic attribution, variant, or dating claim.
openestablishedposition text
Is any one reviewed token the earliest surviving use of the verb?
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.
openestablishedposition text
Does Köbler's headword cross-reference to hatōn settle the ancestry?
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.
openprobableposition text
Does persōna securely mean a mask through which sound passes?
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.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Does every modern Feind literally mean one who hates?
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.
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
Does āhuacatl prove that the fruit was named after a testicle?
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.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Was algorithm first used in 1699 or 1926?
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.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Do the displayed citations measure how often speakers used love versus hate?
No. They are a selected historical-dictionary evidence surface, not a balanced corpus or a sample of medieval speech.
CONTRARIAN TRUTHS / 6
RANK 25GRADE Aranked reveal
Hate was enemy-directed action as well as feeling in Old English.
Old English hatian could mean treating as an enemy, persecuting, or injuring; Beowulf puts the verb beside hostile deeds. The deeper claim that pursuit was the first meaning remains open, and the graph says so.
RANK 46GRADE Aranked reveal
Old High German hazzōn is a paradigm fault line, not proof that hate originally meant pursue.
The clean dictionary headword conceals paired ēn and ōn forms: Starling reports hazzēn in the eighth century and hazzōn in the ninth, Duden prints haʒʒēn and haʒʒōn, and the UT reflex index also records hazēn and hazōn. Corpus-wide research confirms that Old High German ēn verbs can show ōn double forms. DWB reports aemulari and insequi alignments that support emulation, following, or hostile pursuit—but Pokorny’s comparative warning is exact: Germanic evidence does not prove that pursue was the root’s basic meaning. The normalized form, the source-reported tokens, the paradigm analysis, and the prehistoric semantic claim are four different evidence layers.
RANK 58GRADE A-ranked reveal
Medieval Hass could be friendly competition.
Grimm’s DWB quotes Erec 2059: riders pursue a hawking contest, friuntlîchen striten, and share a bescheiden haʒ. The dictionary interprets this as rivalry in pursuing a goal. Modern Duden instead centers intense aversion and hostility. The contrast reveals a real historical side meaning without claiming that every medieval use was friendly or that Liebe and Hass share ancestry.
RANK 70GRADE Acontrarian claim
The viral “it means testicle” story overclaims a real fact.
Nahuatl āhuacatl is documented with both avocado and testicle senses. The dictionaries establish polysemy and transmission through Spanish—not which sense named the other.
RANK 104GRADE Acontrarian claim
Right was straight before morality claimed it.
Old English riht and Germanic *rehtaz belong to a reconstructed straight-and-direct family. Justice and correctness are historical extensions inside the same inherited word.
RANK 137GRADE A-ranked reveal
Middle Irish cais could mean love or hate—and a separate cais meant eye.
eDIL's first numbered cais headword is explicitly explained as both love and hate. Its glossary evidence equates the form with serc and grádh on the love side and miscais or mioscais on the hatred side; cited passages likewise cross the divide. Most strikingly, one Éigse line is tentatively translated "my love ... is met by hatred(?)", placing the same visible form on both sides while preserving the editor's question mark. Then eDIL's second numbered cais headword breaks the spell entirely: it means eye. The unveiling is not that love and hate were secretly identical. It is that written identity, lexicographic grouping, contextual meaning, and historical ancestry are four different claims.
040
BOOKS / DICTIONARIES / ARTICLES / DATABASES
SOURCES
No reviewed record in this collection contains “claim.” Absence describes this graph, not all of linguistic scholarship.
050
FIRST USES & HISTORICAL OBJECTS
ATTESTATION WITNESSES
No reviewed record in this collection contains “claim.” Absence describes this graph, not all of linguistic scholarship.
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.