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 LOCALNo exact match for “Grammar” in this partial English subset. That does not mean the full research corpus—or linguistic scholarship—has no record. Check the original dictionary entry ↗
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 →Grammar
No extractable etymology was found for this exact spelling. Open the original dictionary entry ↗
Read the complete entry and references ↗ · Contribute a cited dossier
012
MODERN ENTRY POINTS
WORD DOSSIERS
Gothic class-II weak-verb lemmadossier summary
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 ↗Old Norse noun, chiefly neutercontrarian claim
hatr
An Old Norse noun for hatred, enmity, or spite. The University of Copenhagen Dictionary of Old Norse Prose gives the main neuter entry 54 citations, while a separately analyzed masculine entry has only one citation and is flagged as possibly an elementary error. The neuter corpus also contains one cautiously proposed mockery or scorn sense aligned with Latin irrisio. A c.1150-1200 manuscript visibly preserves Hatr in a line ONP transcribes Hatr hafa þeir engla and aligns with Latin Odium. The reviewed ancestry joins the Germanic *hatiz- family, preserves the disputed *ḱh₂d-es- and *ḱeh₂d- comparison, and then stops.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗020
ATTESTED / RECONSTRUCTED / BOUNDARY
HISTORICAL FORMS
No reviewed record in this collection contains “grammar.” Absence describes this graph, not all of linguistic scholarship.
0321
WHERE INTERPRETATION IS TESTED
CLAIMS & DISPUTES
SCHOLARLY DISPUTES / 12
openestablishedposition text
Can one exact Old Saxon pronunciation of heti be recovered?
No. The reviewed sources supply spellings, editorial vowel notation, grammar, and comparison, but no recorded voice or fully dated phonetic sequence.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Is Hass categorically incapable of a plural?
No across history. DWDS marks current Hass as singular-only, while DWB calls historical plurals rare and quotes theological hasse and poetic die hasse.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Does definite singular fienden always mean the Devil?
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.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Did fijan denote only an inward feeling?
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.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Does DDO preserve the lost verbal meaning?
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.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Was Old Norse fjá a verb?
Yes. ONP classifies it as a poetic verb; Cleasby, Zoëga, and Fritzner all gloss it as hate and document finite or reflexive grammar.
resolvedprobableposition text
Do the fixed formulas prove the entire prehistoric derivation by themselves?
No. They are daughter-language evidence compatible with participial history; the Proto-Germanic formation is established comparatively across branches.
resolvedprobableposition text
Is fiendi simply the same lexical item as the noun fīant?
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.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Is the infinitive hatan written in the surviving corpus?
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.
resolvedprobableposition text
Does hatis underlie Gothic hatjan and hatizōn?
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.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Is the normalized infinitive hatizōn written in the surviving manuscript?
No. The manuscript token is hatizoþ. Hatizōn is the lexicographic citation form reconstructed from the inflectional paradigm and printed by the historical grammars.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Is the infinitive hatjan itself written in the surviving manuscript?
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.
CONTRARIAN TRUTHS / 9
RANK 28GRADE Aranked reveal
German hostile agitation still carries a hound’s chase.
The medieval verb drives dogs after quarry. The same directed-force construction is soon applied to people: Middle High German records set people against one another, and Early New High German polemic sets rulers against Christians. Modern political hetzen is therefore not merely “hate” verbalized; it inherits a grammar of making another actor pursue, pressure, or attack.
RANK 37GRADE Aranked reveal
Swedish fiende is not built from modern hata.
SO says fiende originally meant hatande. SAOB and Hellquist make the hidden grammar explicit: the enemy noun is a lexicalized present participle of the Germanic fi(j)- verb, literally one who hates. But SAOB’s separate hata article places the modern Swedish hate verb in the hat- family. Swedish therefore carries two different Germanic hate histories side by side: one fossilized inside the everyday noun enemy, the other alive as the everyday verb hata.
RANK 40GRADE Acontrarian claim
Modern Danish kept the enemy but lost the hate verb inside its grammar.
DDO identifies fjende as historically a present participle of a verb corresponding to Old Norse fjá, to hate or persecute. Old Danish fiende then survives through a remarkable surface cloud: Fiende, Fiænde, Finde, Fînde, clipped Fiend, and both two- and three-syllable scans. The current noun no longer means that every enemy literally feels hate; it names active opposition and extends to states, ideologies, animals, weather, and abstractions. The grammatical fossil unveils a history, not a timeless essence.
RANK 45GRADE Aranked reveal
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 47GRADE Aranked reveal
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.
RANK 49GRADE Aranked reveal
The token is attested even though the dictionary headword wears an asterisk.
Köbler heads the Old Saxon noun hėti* but lists written accusative and dative heti plus genitive hetias beneath it. The exact Munich Heliand token is directly visible in the clause rîkioro manno heti endi harmquidi. The dictionary count three also hides a second distinction: it means three lexical loci, while Heliand 1322 survives with M, C, and V readings, producing five reported witness readings across the dossier. The star therefore belongs to an editorial headword layer; it does not erase the attested surface or turn Old Saxon into Proto-Germanic. The visible Heliand context is endured hostility or persecution, while the Saxon Confession groups hetias with malice, envy, and slander. Even the inherited grammar stays open: Fulk and Köbler use an i-stem analysis, whereas Pfeifer calls the wider noun an old es/os-stem.
RANK 52GRADE Aranked reveal
Friend and fiend are grammatical twins—but not cognates.
OED analyzes friend as a noun use of the present participle behind the Germanic free and love family, and it explicitly calls fiend a similar formation. Bosworth–Toller makes the Old English structure visible: freónd is the loving participle of freón, to free or love. The enemy word follows a different hate verb. The real unveiling is structural: one inherited agent noun is the loving one, the other the hating one or enemy, and parallel grammar must not be mistaken for one root splitting into moral opposites.
RANK 59GRADE A-contrarian claim
Old Norse hatr has a 54-to-1 grammar problem.
The University of Copenhagen’s Dictionary of Old Norse Prose separates a 54-citation neuter noun from a one-citation masculine analysis—and flags the lone masculine assignment as possibly an elementary error. A directly inspected c.1150-1200 manuscript visibly preserves Hatr, but a visible token cannot settle gender by itself. The reveal is not that Old Norse had two equally secure hate nouns; it is that rigorous lexicography preserves the fracture instead of hiding it.
RANK 193GRADE A-contrarian claim
The reconstructed root has grammar, not just letters.
The proposed path is not simply *set-u- with an asterisk. Scholars analyze formations such as *set-eu-o-, debate the vowel structure, and qualify the loss of initial *s.
046
BOOKS / DICTIONARIES / ARTICLES / DATABASES
SOURCES
historical grammar11 CLAIM LINKS
Grammar of the Gothic Language — glossary entries hatan, hatis, hatizōn, and hatjan
Joseph Wright / 1910
title prefixAUDIT EVERY USE ↗historical grammar15 CLAIM LINKS
A Gothic Grammar with Selections for Reading and a Glossary — hatan and hatjan
Wilhelm Braune · translated and edited by Gerhard H. Balg / 1895
source titleAUDIT EVERY USE ↗historical grammar12 CLAIM LINKS
A Comparative Grammar of the Early Germanic Languages — Gothic hatis
R. D. Fulk / 2018
source titleAUDIT EVERY USE ↗contemporary dictionary5 CLAIM LINKS
Algemeen Nederlands Woordenboek — vijand, grammar and corpus examples
Instituut voor de Nederlandse Taal editorial team
source titleAUDIT EVERY USE ↗monograph4 CLAIM LINKS
A Comparative Grammar of the Early Germanic Languages
R. D. Fulk / 2018
source titleAUDIT EVERY USE ↗contemporary dictionary1 CLAIM LINKS
Algemeen Nederlands Woordenboek — vriend, grammar record
Instituut voor de Nederlandse Taal editorial team
source titleAUDIT EVERY USE ↗052
FIRST USES & HISTORICAL OBJECTS
ATTESTATION WITNESSES
DIRECTLY INSPECTEDprinted book
John Harris’s Lexicon technicum prints ETYMOLOGY as a headword and defines it as the part of grammar concerned with words’ origins and true signification.
etymology / etymology / 1704
Lexicon technicum: or, an universal English dictionary of arts and scienceswitness excerpt / OPEN RECORD ↗SOURCE REPORTEDlexical corpus record
Corpus Hedendaags Nederlands selection
vijand / vijand / 2017 corpus example
Algemeen Nederlands Woordenboek — vijand, grammar and corpus examplesreporting 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.