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 “Hid” 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.
Chambers (1908)
1908Hid
No extractable etymology was found for this exact spelling. Open the original dictionary entry ↗
Read the complete entry and references ↗ · Contribute a cited dossier
MODERN ENTRY POINTS
WORD DOSSIERS
boy
A male child or young man; Middle English also used the word for a male servant or churl, and its origin remains disputed.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗collect
To bring together, accumulate, infer, or receive; from Latin colligere, literally built with a together-prefix and legere.
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 ↗kindred
An inherited English kinship word built from Old English cynn “kin” plus -ræden “condition or state,” with an intrusive d and a fossilized second element whose wider word-forming pattern disappeared.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗loaf
A shaped mass of bread; the inherited noun continues Old English hlāf through Middle English lof and a reconstructed Germanic bread word.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗ATTESTED / RECONSTRUCTED / BOUNDARY
HISTORICAL FORMS
WHERE INTERPRETATION IS TESTED
CLAIMS & DISPUTES
SCHOLARLY DISPUTES / 4
Does boy securely descend from a word for ox hide?
No. American Heritage offers a possible chain through a fettered person, fetter, Latin restraint collar, and Greek ox hide; Oxford labels the origin unknown.
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.
Are hatian “hate” and hátian “become hot” one word?
No. Bosworth–Toller lists separate headwords with different vowel quantity, meanings, examples, and Germanic comparisons. Modern typography that drops macrons can hide the distinction.
Is rājā the lexical stem of the Sanskrit noun?
Not exactly. Rājā is the nominative singular; the consonant stem is rājan-, which appears across the paradigm and compounds.
CONTRARIAN TRUTHS / 10
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Two identical Spanish spellings hide unrelated histories.
Animal llama is Quechua through Spanish; llama “flame” is a separate Latin descendant.
Woman does not contain womb.
Old English wīfman combines wīf, woman or wife, with mann, human being or person; contraction hid the compound in plain sight.
The king is still hiding inside check.
English shah directly borrows the Persian royal title. A much longer route through chess vocabulary carries that same king-word into English check and its later restraint, verification, and banking senses.
“From Chinese” can be true and still hide the history.
Turkish çay ultimately belongs to the Chinese cha family, but the reviewed Turkish study favors Persian as the bridge into historical Turkey Turkish.
Boy may reach ox—but only through a disputed trail.
One proposal runs from a fettered person through a shackle, restraint collar, ox hide, and ox; another major reference says the origin is unknown.
BOOKS / DICTIONARIES / ARTICLES / DATABASES
SOURCES
No reviewed record in this collection contains “hid.” Absence describes this graph, not all of linguistic scholarship.
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.