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 LOCAL4 source sections across 1 headword matching “Dig”. These are separate from the reviewed results below.
digEnglish (en) · Etymology 1Source text
From Middle English diggen (“to dig”, 13th c.), an alteration of dīken, from Old English dīcian (“to dig a ditch, mound up earth”), from Proto-West Germanic *dīkōn, which see for cognates. This verb is denominal from Proto-Germanic *dīkaz (“pool, puddle; dyke, ditch”), from Proto-Indo-European *dʰeygʷ- (“to stab, dig”). The form with g may have been influenced by Old French *diguer, a variant of dikier, itself from the West Germanic verb above. French forms with g are attested only in the 15th c., thus 200 years later than in English. On the other hand, French has according forms also for the underlying noun (cf. digue) and the phonetic development is more plausible in French than in English.
Original Wiktionary entry and references ↗digEnglish (en) · Etymology 2Source text
From African American Vernacular English; due to lack of writing of slave speech, etymology is difficult to trace, but it has been suggested that it is from Wolof dëgg, dëgga (“to understand, to appreciate”). It has also been suggested that it is from Irish dtuig, thus being a doublet of twig. Others do not propose a distinct etymology, instead considering this a semantic shift of the existing English term (compare dig in/dig into).
Original Wiktionary entry and references ↗digEnglish (en) · Etymology 3Source text
Shortening.
Original Wiktionary entry and references ↗digEnglish (en) · Etymology 4Source text
Unknown. Compare Middle English digge.
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 →MODERN ENTRY POINTS
WORD DOSSIERS
aguacate
The Spanish word for the avocado tree and fruit, borrowed from Nahuatl āhuacatl, whose historical records include both fruit and testicle senses.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗fēogan
An Old English verb meaning hate or persecute, recorded as FEÓGAN, feógean, fiógan, contracted feón and fión, with participle feógende and a broad present-and-past paradigm. Bosworth–Toller supplies examples whose objects include crimes, evil ways, law, peace, a temple, friends, and people. The verb continues reconstructed Proto-Germanic *fi(j)ēn-. Its active-participial formation lexicalized prehistorically as the enemy noun behind Old English fēond and modern fiend, but the verb, participle, and noun are not one interchangeable category.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗fēond
An Old English enemy, foe, and Devil noun inherited from the Germanic lexicalized present-participial formation *fi(j)and-. OED’s revised 2026 entry treats fēond and fīond as dialectal Old English forms, documents i-mutated fīend and fȳnd inside the inherited nd-stem inflection, and traces the word through a highly variable Middle English record into modern fiend. Bosworth–Toller supplies the Old English paradigm and examples; the Middle English Dictionary independently reports 188 quotations across eight senses. Cotton MS Vitellius A XV folio 180v was directly inspected at Beowulf 2289, where feondes modifies fotlast, the foe’s footprint.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗fīunt
Old Dutch fīunt is the normalized headword behind a twenty-six-occurrence historical-dictionary record for enemy or opponent. ONW classifies the noun as synchronically unsegmented but says it was originally the present participle of the verb corresponding to Old High German fīēn and Gothic fijan, a verb no longer known in Dutch. Its frequency table preserves six case-number cells: nominative and genitive singular plus nominative, genitive, dative, and accusative plural. Those are not a complete paradigm. The article displays twenty representative location blocks after warning that locations in the semantic profile have been reduced. Most early Wachtendonck Psalms material is linguistically dated 901–1000 but survives in copies dated 1595–1605, circa 1598, or 1701–1800; no tenth-century manuscript object was inspected. One dfiunt or fiunt gloss aligned with Latin diabolus is textually disputed, and one Groningen psalm gloss is explicitly assigned to Old Frisian by the dictionary. This dossier therefore treats fīunt as a nominal fossil with a partially preserved inflectional record, not as a productive Old Dutch participle or a complete transparent paradigm.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗hammock
The suspended-bed sense entered English through Spanish hamaca from Taíno hamaca; it is etymologically separate from the southern U.S. terrain word hammock.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗hatis
A Gothic noun conventionally glossed hate, hatred, anger, or wrath. Project Wulfila reports fifteen corpus tokens in three surface forms: hatis, hatiza, and hatize. Its fourteen biblical tokens translate Greek wrath vocabulary rather than supplying a clean mirror of modern personal dislike: Streitberg maps the family chiefly to orgē, assigns Galatians 5:20 to thumos, and leaves Ephesians 4:31 unresolved because both Greek nouns stand together. The visible Gothic paradigm is also historical evidence: Project Wulfila treats hatis as a neuter a-stem, while Fulk analyzes it as an inherited i-stem transferred to the a-stems.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗hatjan
A Gothic weak verb meaning hate, represented by exactly one verified corpus token: the present participle hatjandam in Matthew 5:44. Project Wulfila lemmatizes that token as class-I hatjan, while the parallel Luke 6:27 command uses class-III hatandans from hatan. Braune treats the two shapes as conjugational fluctuation; Orel and the current corpus keep distinct formations visible. The normalized infinitive, the written participle, and the reconstructed parent are therefore never collapsed.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗hatōn
The normalized Old Saxon weak-verb lemma hatōn is supported by a four-locus dictionary inventory: Heliand 1451 writes infinitive hatan in manuscript M and haton in manuscript C; Heliand 4915 writes genitive-plural present-participial hatandiero in M and hettendero in C; manuscript C supplies preterite hatoda at Heliand 5423; and GlG supplies infinitive haton aligned with Latin odisse. Those are six witness readings at four cited loci, not six independent lexemes or four manuscripts. The first Munich infinitive and the Munich hatandiero locus were directly inspected. The category problem is deeper than spelling: Köbler also indexes the Heliand 4915 forms under the separate agent noun hėttiand, enemy. The record therefore exposes the exact point where a live participial form and a lexicalized enemy noun overlap. It does not prove that pursue was the root meaning, that every enemy hates, or that every indexed form belongs unambiguously to one synchronic category.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗hazzōn
An Old High German citation form in the inherited Germanic hate-verb family, printed beside hazzēn and spelling variants hazēn, hazōn, haʒʒēn, and haʒʒōn. Starling’s source record dates hazzēn to the eighth century and hazzōn to the ninth; Duden and Grimm’s DWB group the ēn and ōn forms in the history of German hassen. Corpus-wide research independently shows that some Old High German class-III ēn verbs also occur with class-II ōn forms, but the accessible abstract does not establish that hazzōn is one of its twenty repeatedly attested double forms. DWB reports haʒôn aligned with Latin aemulari and the forms hatamas and hatent with insequamur and insequuntur. Those reports support an action range involving following or hostile pursuit; they are not directly inspected manuscript tokens. Pokorny’s account, as transmitted by Starling, explicitly warns that the Germanic evidence does not prove “pursue” was the root’s basic meaning. The route therefore distinguishes the normalized headword, the combined historical variants, the reconstructed Germanic weak verb and noun family, the qualified Indo-European comparison, and the point where knowledge ends.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗humiliate
To reduce someone in their own or others’ estimation, causing shame or loss of dignity; from Late Latin forms meaning to make low or humble.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗jaguar
English jaguar, recorded by 1604, came through Portuguese from Tupi jawára, whose range was broader than the modern zoological species label.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗kayak
An English borrowing recorded in 1757 from Inuit qayaq, the name of the Indigenous Arctic watercraft; the reviewed English source does not identify one specific Inuit language variety.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗ATTESTED / RECONSTRUCTED / BOUNDARY
HISTORICAL FORMS
*dīg-
to knead or form
- DATE
- Proto-Germanic
- MATCH
- exact historical form
- DOSSIERS
- 0
-dige
kneader element
- DATE
- Old English
- MATCH
- historical-form prefix
- DOSSIERS
- 0
hatan
to hate in the quoted enemy command; wider paradigm also glossed pursue
- DATE
- Munich Heliand manuscript, second half of the ninth century
- MATCH
- gloss
- DOSSIERS
- 1
hlǣfdige
lady; mistress of a household; loaf kneader
- DATE
- Old English
- MATCH
- transliteration
- DOSSIERS
- 1
WHERE INTERPRETATION IS TESTED
CLAIMS & DISPUTES
SCHOLARLY DISPUTES / 12
Can the exact Proto-Germanic pronunciation and paradigm be recovered?
Not completely. Comparative forms support the morphology, but no recording or written Proto-Germanic paradigm survives.
Can the exact Proto-Germanic pronunciation and inflection be recovered?
Not completely. OED reconstructs vowel contraction and formal variation, but no recording or written Proto-Germanic paradigm survives.
Can the exact Proto-Germanic pronunciation and full paradigm be recovered?
Not completely. Comparative evidence supports the nd-participial morphology, but no written paradigm or recording survives.
Are hatan and hatjan two Gothic verbs or one fluctuating paradigm?
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.
Are hatjan and hatan two Gothic verbs or one fluctuating paradigm?
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.
Was the weak verb formed directly from *hatiz-?
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.
Were hazzēn and hazzōn separate unrelated verbs?
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.
Can the exact Proto-Germanic pronunciation and paradigm be recovered?
Not completely. The participial reconstruction is well supported, but no recorded Proto-Germanic token or full paradigm survives.
Is modern fiende still a productive Swedish participle?
No. SO and SAOB classify current fiende as a noun. The participial origin is historical and lexicalized.
Are frīend and frȳnd separate friend words?
No. OED explains them as inherited i-mutated inflectional forms, with some analogical re-formation possible elsewhere in the paradigm.
Are fēogan and feón separate hate verbs?
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.
Is feógende automatically the noun fēond?
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.
CONTRARIAN TRUTHS / 12
The Old English verb survives most visibly as an enemy.
The located weak-verb corpus inventory gives hettan only one form: hettende. Bosworth–Toller records that surface family repeatedly under hettend, “enemy” or “antagonist,” including Genesis and the Phoenix. The verb is therefore not a neat recovered paradigm; it is a lemma inferred at the edge between action, agent, and lexicalized foe.
Gothic hatis—the noun related to English hate—survives chiefly as wrath, including the wrath to come and the wrath of God.
Project Wulfila reports fifteen tokens in hatis, hatiza, and hatize. Fourteen are biblical; Streitberg maps the family chiefly to Greek orgē, gives Galatians 5:20 thumos, and flags Ephesians 4:31 because both stand together. Codex Argenteus folio 129r directly preserves hatiza in “the wrath to come.” Even the paradigm resists simplification: synchronic neuter a-stem, historically an i-stem remodeled into it.
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.
The Old Dutch enemy noun outlived the hate verb that created it.
ONW counts twenty-six fīunt occurrences across six attested case-number cells, yet classifies the noun as synchronically unsegmented and says the corresponding hate verb is no longer known in Dutch. Comparative evidence reconstructs the noun as an old present-participial formation: the hating one. The grammar therefore preserves a fossil in nominative, genitive, dative, and accusative records after Dutch lost the living verb that once made the formation transparent. Six cells are evidence, not a complete paradigm; the early Psalms records survive in later copies; and the lone Devil gloss is disputed.
The verb disappeared from ordinary English; its prehistoric hater survived as fiend.
Old English fēogan meant hate or persecute and had a productive paradigm including feógende. The Germanic active-participial formation had already lexicalized as an enemy noun before the recorded branches. English therefore preserves the family most visibly not in its ordinary verb hate, but in fēond and modern fiend.
A borrowed word can encode a category that English flattens.
Navajo hooghan means home or house within Diné life; English hogan should not be generalized into a label for any Indigenous dwelling.
The Indigenous route is real scholarship—but not a closed case.
English securely borrowed Louisiana French bayouque. Early Choctaw *bayok is plausible, while the oft-repeated bayuk form and its contraction to modern bók remain insecure.
The brand and species name began as a broader Indigenous predator word.
Portuguese carried Tupi jawára into English, where a broad large-carnivore label became the name of Panthera onca.
Lady is not the feminine form of lord.
Old English hlǣfdige shares lord’s loaf component but pairs it with a kneading element, not guardian.
Loaf is the word inside both lord and lady.
Old English hlāf continues as loaf and is also the exact historical bread component shared by hlāford and hlǣfdige.
Humiliate is historically to make low.
Late Latin humiliāre means to make low or humble and grows from humilis, low or near the ground, which is formed from humus, earth. Modern shame and loss of dignity sit on that lowering history.
The bed word is Indigenous Caribbean—and its English look-alike is unrelated.
Hammock came through Spanish hamaca from Taíno hamaca. The southern U.S. terrain noun has a separate etymology.
BOOKS / DICTIONARIES / ARTICLES / DATABASES
SOURCES
An Icelandic-English Dictionary — fjándi
Richard Cleasby · Guðbrandur Vigfússon / 1874
publisherAUDIT EVERY USE ↗An Icelandic-English Dictionary — FRÆNDI
Richard Cleasby · Guðbrandur Vigfússon / 1874
publisherAUDIT EVERY USE ↗Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob Grimm und Wilhelm Grimm — feind, m.
Jacob Grimm · Wilhelm Grimm · Trier Center for Digital Humanities / 2025
author or editorAUDIT EVERY USE ↗A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary — hete and related entries
John R. Clark Hall / 1916
publisherAUDIT EVERY USE ↗Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob Grimm und Wilhelm Grimm — Freund
Jacob Grimm · Wilhelm Grimm / 1878
publisherAUDIT EVERY USE ↗An Icelandic-English Dictionary — fjá
Richard Cleasby · Guðbrandur Vigfússon / 1874
publisherAUDIT EVERY USE ↗An Icelandic-English Dictionary — hatr
Richard Cleasby · Guðbrandur Vigfússon · Sampo Silvennoinen digital edition / 1874
author or editorAUDIT EVERY USE ↗Grammar of the Gothic Language — glossary entries hatan, hatis, hatizōn, and hatjan
Joseph Wright / 1910
publisherAUDIT EVERY USE ↗Die gotische Bibel — Wörterbuch entry hatis
Wilhelm Streitberg / 1910
publisherAUDIT EVERY USE ↗ἔτυμος — A Greek-English Lexicon
Henry George Liddell · Robert Scott · Henry Stuart Jones / 1940
publisherAUDIT EVERY USE ↗An Icelandic-English Dictionary — hata
Richard Cleasby · Guðbrandur Vigfússon / 1874
publisherAUDIT EVERY USE ↗Heliand — BSB Cgm 25, scan 41, folio 20r, heti locus
Bayerische Staatsbibliothek · Münchener DigitalisierungsZentrum / 875
author or editorAUDIT EVERY USE ↗FIRST USES & HISTORICAL OBJECTS
ATTESTATION WITNESSES
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.