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 LOCAL1 source section across 1 headword matching “Got”. These are separate from the reviewed results below.
gotEnglish (en) · Etymology 2Source text
Analogous to Chinese 有, such as Hokkien 有 (ū), Cantonese 有 (jau⁵), Mandarin 有 (yǒu). Sense 1 is also comparable to Malay ada.
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 →0112
MODERN ENTRY POINTS
WORD DOSSIERS
German masculine noundossier summary
Feind
The modern German noun for a personal, political, military, or ideological enemy or opponent. Duden derives it through Middle High German vīnt or vīant and Old High German fīand, literally the hating one; DWDS dates Old High German fīant and fījant to the eighth century and identifies the Germanic ancestor as a petrified substantivized present participle. Grimm’s dictionary independently compares Gothic fijands, Old English fēond, English fiend, Dutch vijand, and Nordic forms, while warning that its own still-deeper foam hypothesis required confirmation. The reviewed route therefore follows the inherited enemy noun to reconstructed *fi(j)and- and *fi(j)ēn-, then treats *peh₁- as proposed and stops.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗German masculine noundossier summary
Freund
German Freund continues Middle High German vriunt and Old High German friunt. DWDS/Pfeifer, Duden, and Grimm independently analyze the inherited Germanic formation as a substantivized present participle of the verb represented by Gothic frijōn and Old English frēogan: historically a loving or favorably disposed one. The record is semantically wider than a modern close companion: the historical dictionaries also document neighbor, relative, lover, ally, supporter, patron, address, and euphemistic uses. The graph joins the High German line to the same reviewed *frijōnd- and *frī- nodes as English friend, keeps *prī- proposed, and stops.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗German masculine noundossier summary
Hass
The modern German noun for intense aversion, rejection, or hostility toward a person, group, or institution. Duden traces Middle and Old High German haʒ to suffering, sorrow, and resentment and records the 1996 spelling change from Haß to Hass. DWDS/Pfeifer reports the Old High German noun from the eighth century and places it in the Germanic family of Old Saxon heti, Old English hete, Old Norse hatr, Gothic hatis, and related forms. Grimm’s DWB preserves a more complicated semantic record: hostile pursuit or action, anger expressed in deeds, ordinary hostile disposition, and even measured rivalry during friendly competition. The reviewed route reuses *hatiz- and the qualified *ḱh₂d-es- / *ḱeh₂d- comparison, then stops.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Swedish common-gender noundossier summary
fiende
The ordinary Swedish noun for an enemy, opponent, hostile state, or figurative threat continues Old Swedish fiande or fiände and an inherited Germanic present-participial formation: literally the hating one. Svenska Akademiens current dictionary calls the word Common Germanic and gives the original force hatande; SAOB and Hellquist independently derive the noun from the fi(j)- hate verb behind Gothic fijan and Old Norse fjá. Modern Swedish hata belongs to a separate Germanic hat- family, so fiende is not transparently built from the verb Swedish speakers now use for hate. Historical Swedish also used Fienden for the Devil, but that branch is not the word’s only or current central meaning. All medieval and early-modern examples here are source-reported lexical records, not directly inspected manuscript objects.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Gothic class-III weak-verb lemmacontrarian claim
fijan
A Gothic class-III weak verb conventionally glossed hate or detest. Project Wulfila currently exposes 42 candidate tokens under fijan: 13 verified, eight further lexically unambiguous, and 21 explicitly ambiguous with the masculine nd-stem noun fijands, enemy. The surface inventory contains fifteen written shapes, including one exact infinitive fijan in John 7:7 and four j-less forms. Ayora Estevan shows why the overlap cannot be normalized away: Proto-Germanic had already lexicalized *fi(j)and- as enemy, while Gothic still used the matching present-participial formation for one who hates.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Gothic masculine nd-stem common nouncontrarian claim
fijands
A Gothic masculine nd-stem noun conventionally glossed enemy. Project Wulfila currently exposes 26 candidates: three verified noun assignments, two further noun-only assignments, and 21 surface forms also listed under the living verb fijan. Ayora Estevan explains the collision diachronically: Proto-Germanic had already lexicalized the present-participial *fi(j)and- as enemy, while Gothic retained productive one-who-hates participles beside the noun. The five noun-only candidates use fiand, fijands, fijande, and fijandis; all five were inspected in Codex Argenteus facsimiles.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Old Norse verbdossier summary
fjá
Old Norse fjá was a verb meaning to hate. The Dictionary of Old Norse Prose classifies it as poetic and exposes zero prose citations; its glossarium links point to the early form fía and the reconstructed Proto-Germanic *fi(j)ēn-. Cleasby and Vigfússon call the verb obsolete, compare Gothic fijan and Old English feon or fjan, and locate it in Hýmiskviða 22 and Lokasenna 35, with the reflexive fjásk in Skírnismál 33. Fritzner independently gives the same three locations. The normalized verse texts preserve three different grammatical surfaces: goð fjá in Hýmiskviða, mangi fíár in Lokasenna, and Freyr fiásk in Skírnismál. Lexicon Poeticum likewise reports three poetic records, but explicitly warns that its concordance is unreviewed and that dates should be checked. These are source-reported lexical and edited-text records, not directly inspected manuscript objects, and three records in the reviewed poetic concordance are not a census of every Old Norse utterance. The finite verb became a tiny poetic fossil while its inherited participial relative fjándi became the ordinary enemy noun and accumulated 222 citations in ONP's prose corpus. Those corpus totals are not directly frequency-comparable, but the contrast makes the grammatical survival visible. The generated possible runic inscription shown by modern dictionary transcriptions is not historical evidence and is excluded. No historical sound recording exists, so the dossier does not fabricate one exact pronunciation.
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 Dutch masculine noundossier summary
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 ↗Gothic class-III weak-verb lemmacontrarian claim
hatan
A Gothic weak verb conventionally glossed hate, represented by exactly two currently reported corpus tokens: hatandane in Luke 1:71 and hatandans in Luke 6:27. Both are present participles; no surviving token writes the normalized infinitive. Their translation behavior defeats a one-word gloss: Luke 1 uses fijandam for enemies and hatandane for those hating, while Luke 6 uses hatandans for enemies and fijandam for those hating. Project Wulfila keeps class-III hatan separate from class-I hatjan, Braune calls the forms conjugational fluctuation, Orel publishes a reconstructed class-III alternation, and Sturtevant argues that the hatan shape may instead be a specifically Gothic secondary formation.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Gothic neuter nouncontrarian claim
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 ↗Gothic class-II weak-verb lemmacontrarian claim
hatizōn
A Gothic weak verb meaning be angry with or at someone, represented by exactly one verified corpus token: present active second-person plural hatizoþ in John 7:23. Project Wulfila and Streitberg align the form with Greek χολᾶτε in the question “are you angry at me?” and analyze the verb with a dative object. The University of Texas derivational grammar builds class-II hatizōn on the consonantal stem hatiz- of hatis “hatred” or “wrath”; Wright independently lists it as a class-II weak verb. The macronized infinitive is a scholarly citation form, while the manuscript writes only the inflected token without a vowel-length mark. The route continues through the reviewed Germanic noun family and a qualified Indo-European comparison, then stops. One corpus token cannot establish spoken rarity, first use, a complete semantic range, exact pronunciation, or one prehistoric essence.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗029
ATTESTED / RECONSTRUCTED / BOUNDARY
HISTORICAL FORMS
*
Proto-Germanic / Indo-European
*xatjanan
a reconstructed Germanic weak verb represented by Gothic hatjan, Old English hettan, and Middle High German hetzen
- DATE
- Proto-Germanic
- MATCH
- gloss
- DOSSIERS
- 3
Gothic / Indo-European
fian
j-less variant of fijan
- DATE
- Gothic historical-dictionary normalization
- MATCH
- language
- DOSSIERS
- 0
Gothic / Indo-European
fijan
to hate or detest; direct an experience of hostility toward a stimulus
- DATE
- Gothic textual tradition
- MATCH
- language
- DOSSIERS
- 1
Gothic / Indo-European
fijands
enemy; lexicalized masculine nd-stem agent noun
- DATE
- Gothic textual tradition
- MATCH
- language
- DOSSIERS
- 1
Gothic / Indo-European
hatan
to hate; in a substantivized participle, an enemy or one who hates
- DATE
- Gothic biblical tradition
- MATCH
- language
- DOSSIERS
- 1
Gothic / Indo-European
hatis
hatred, anger, or wrath
- DATE
- Gothic textual tradition
- MATCH
- language
- DOSSIERS
- 2
Gothic / Indo-European
hatizōn
to be angry with or at someone
- DATE
- Gothic biblical tradition
- MATCH
- language
- DOSSIERS
- 1
Gothic / Indo-European
hatjan
to hate
- DATE
- Gothic biblical tradition
- MATCH
- language
- DOSSIERS
- 1
Gothic / Indo-European
liufs
dear, beloved
- DATE
- Gothic biblical tradition
- MATCH
- language
- DOSSIERS
- 1
0320
WHERE INTERPRETATION IS TESTED
CLAIMS & DISPUTES
SCHOLARLY DISPUTES / 12
openprobableposition text
Are fijan and fian separate Gothic verbs?
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.
openprobableposition text
Is fijands an ordinary participle or a lexical noun meaning enemy?
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.
openprobableposition text
Is fijands just an ordinary Gothic present participle?
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.
openproposedposition text
Was fijands still transparently one who hates to Gothic speakers?
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.
openprobableposition text
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.
openprobableposition text
Are hatan and fijan perfect synonyms?
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.
openproposedposition text
Was hatan inherited unchanged from Proto-Germanic?
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.
openprobableposition text
Does Galatians 5:20 prove hatis always meant explosive anger?
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.
openestablishedposition text
Is John 7:23 the first Gothic use of the verb?
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.
openprobableposition text
How does hatizōn relate to Gothic hatjan and hatan?
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.
openprobableposition text
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.
openprobableposition text
Did Gothic hatjan mean pursue because German hetzen later did?
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.
CONTRARIAN TRUTHS / 8
RANK 29GRADE Acontrarian claim
One Gothic hate verb survives once—in a command to do good to those who hate you.
Project Wulfila’s only verified hatjan token is hatjandam in Matthew 5:44, directly visible on Codex Argenteus folio 3v. A parallel “love your enemies” command in Luke 6:27 instead uses hatandans from class-III hatan. The translation gloss “hate” therefore hides a genuine grammatical and historical dispute.
RANK 30GRADE Acontrarian claim
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.
RANK 31GRADE Acontrarian claim
Gothic’s two hate verbs trade places across two passages.
The complete surviving hatan corpus contains only hatandane in Luke 1:71 and hatandans in Luke 6:27. In Luke 1, fijandam supplies enemies while hatandane supplies those hating; in Luke 6, hatandans supplies enemies while fijandam supplies those hating. Both Codex Argenteus pages are directly inspected. The lexical swap—and the class-III versus class-I dispute—cannot be represented by one timeless translation arrow.
RANK 32GRADE Acontrarian claim
Enemy is a fossilized hater—but 21 Gothic tokens still refuse to choose.
Project Wulfila lists 42 candidates under fijan and 26 under the enemy noun fijands. Their intersection is exactly 21 surface tokens. Ayora Estevan explains the collision: *fi(j)and- had lexicalized as enemy before Gothic, while Gothic still possessed the productive present participle one who hates. Case and syntax resolve some passages; the remaining 21 stay public as noun-versus-participle ambiguity.
RANK 33GRADE Aranked reveal
Enemy is a fossilized hater—but lexicalization does not make every token transparent.
Project Wulfila lists 26 candidates under the Gothic enemy noun and 42 under the verb fijan; exactly 21 surface tokens belong to both inventories. Ayora Estevan explains why: Proto-Germanic had already lexicalized one who hates as enemy, while Gothic retained the productive participle. The five noun-only tokens are directly inspected; the 21-token overlap remains public instead of being counted twice as certainty.
RANK 45GRADE Acontrarian claim
One Gothic anger verb survives in one question—and not in its dictionary form.
Project Wulfila’s complete current inventory contains one hatizōn token: hatizoþ in John 7:23, “are you angry at me?” Codex Argenteus folio 94v directly preserves the inflection. The manuscript never writes the normalized infinitive or its editorial macron. Grammar then reveals another layer: hatizōn is a class-II verb built from the consonantal stem hatiz- of hatis “hatred” or “wrath.” One English gloss therefore hides a noun-to-verb formation, one surviving grammatical person, and a sharp boundary between pixels and reconstruction.
RANK 158GRADE Acontrarian claim
A starred Gothic lemma can still be manuscript-attested.
Project Wulfila writes *liufs because the normalized citation form is inferred from inflections. Forms such as liuba and liubans survive in named codices, so this is not the same kind of star as Proto-Germanic *leubaz.
RANK 199GRADE A-ranked reveal
Dutch lief is love’s adjective cousin, not its child.
Dutch lief belongs with Gothic liufs and German lieb in the inherited dear-or-beloved adjective branch. English love is a separate noun route in the same deeper family.
0412
BOOKS / DICTIONARIES / ARTICLES / DATABASES
SOURCES
scholarly grammar13 CLAIM LINKS
Gothic Online, Lesson 8 — hatis and denominative hatizōn
Todd B. Krause · Jonathan Slocum / 2026
title prefixAUDIT EVERY USE ↗research database12 CLAIM LINKS
Gothic Bible word analysis — Luke 1:71, hatandane
Project Wulfila editors · Wilhelm Streitberg / 2026
title prefixAUDIT EVERY USE ↗research database12 CLAIM LINKS
Gothic Bible word analysis — Luke 6:27, hatandans
Project Wulfila editors · Wilhelm Streitberg / 2026
title prefixAUDIT EVERY USE ↗research database9 CLAIM LINKS
Gothic Bible word analysis — John 7:23, hatizoþ
Project Wulfila editors · Wilhelm Streitberg / 2026
title prefixAUDIT EVERY USE ↗research database4 CLAIM LINKS
Gothic Bible word analysis — Colossians 3:6, hatis
Project Wulfila editors · Wilhelm Streitberg / 2026
title prefixAUDIT EVERY USE ↗research database4 CLAIM LINKS
Gothic Bible word analysis — Ephesians 2:3, hatize and hatis
Project Wulfila editors · Wilhelm Streitberg / 2026
title prefixAUDIT EVERY USE ↗research database4 CLAIM LINKS
Gothic Bible word analysis — Galatians 5:20, hatiza
Project Wulfila editors · Wilhelm Streitberg / 2026
title prefixAUDIT EVERY USE ↗research database4 CLAIM LINKS
Gothic Bible word analysis — Matthew 5:44, hatjandam
Project Wulfila editors · Wilhelm Streitberg / 2026
title prefixAUDIT EVERY USE ↗research database3 CLAIM LINKS
Gothic Bible word analysis — Mark 1:11
Project Wulfila editors; Wilhelm Streitberg / 2026
title prefixAUDIT EVERY USE ↗research database3 CLAIM LINKS
Gothic Bible word analysis — Romans 12:9, fiandans
Project Wulfila editors · Wilhelm Streitberg / 2026
title prefixAUDIT EVERY USE ↗research database2 CLAIM LINKS
Gothic Bible word analysis — Colossians 3:8, hatis
Project Wulfila editors · Wilhelm Streitberg / 2026
title prefixAUDIT EVERY USE ↗research database2 CLAIM LINKS
Gothic Bible word analysis — Ephesians 4:31, hatis
Project Wulfila editors · Wilhelm Streitberg / 2026
title prefixAUDIT EVERY USE ↗0512
FIRST USES & HISTORICAL OBJECTS
ATTESTATION WITNESSES
SOURCE REPORTEDlexical corpus record
Codex Argenteus, Matthew 5:43
fijan / fijan / early 6th-century witness, source-reported
Gothic Bible word analysis — Matthew 5:43, fiais and fiandreporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗SOURCE REPORTEDlexical corpus record
Codex Argenteus, Matthew 6:24
fijan / fijan / early 6th-century witness, source-reported
Lemma fijan — Gothic dictionary and 42-token candidate inventoryreporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗SOURCE REPORTEDlexical corpus record
Codex Argenteus, John 7:7
fijan / fijan / early 6th-century witness, source-reported
Lemma fijan — Gothic dictionary and 42-token candidate inventoryreporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗SOURCE REPORTEDlexical corpus record
Codex Argenteus, John 15:18
fijan / fijan / early 6th-century witness, source-reported
Lemma fijan — Gothic dictionary and 42-token candidate inventoryreporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗SOURCE REPORTEDlexical corpus record
Codex Argenteus, John 15:18
fijan / fijan / early 6th-century witness, source-reported
Lemma fijan — Gothic dictionary and 42-token candidate inventoryreporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗SOURCE REPORTEDlexical corpus record
Codex Argenteus, John 15:19
fijan / fijan / early 6th-century witness, source-reported
Lemma fijan — Gothic dictionary and 42-token candidate inventoryreporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗SOURCE REPORTEDlexical corpus record
Codex Argenteus, John 15:23
fijan / fijan / early 6th-century witness, source-reported
Lemma fijan — Gothic dictionary and 42-token candidate inventoryreporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗SOURCE REPORTEDlexical corpus record
Codex Argenteus, John 15:23
fijan / fijan / early 6th-century witness, source-reported
Lemma fijan — Gothic dictionary and 42-token candidate inventoryreporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗SOURCE REPORTEDlexical corpus record
Codex Argenteus, John 15:24
fijan / fijan / early 6th-century witness, source-reported
Lemma fijan — Gothic dictionary and 42-token candidate inventoryreporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗SOURCE REPORTEDlexical corpus record
Codex Argenteus, John 15:25
fijan / fijan / early 6th-century witness, source-reported
Lemma fijan — Gothic dictionary and 42-token candidate inventoryreporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗SOURCE REPORTEDlexical corpus record
Codex Argenteus, John 17:14
fijan / fijan / early 6th-century witness, source-reported
Lemma fijan — Gothic dictionary and 42-token candidate inventoryreporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗SOURCE REPORTEDlexical corpus record
Codex Argenteus, Luke 14:26
fijan / fijan / early 6th-century witness, source-reported
Lemma fijan — Gothic dictionary and 42-token candidate inventoryreporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗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.