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 LOCAL5 source sections across 2 headwords matching “Mun”. These are separate from the reviewed results below.
MunEnglish (en) · Etymology 1Source text
Shortened form
Original Wiktionary entry and references ↗MunEnglish (en) · Etymology 2Source text
Borrowed from Korean 문 (mun), mainly from Chinese 文.
Original Wiktionary entry and references ↗munEnglish (en) · Etymology 1Source text
From Middle English mone (“shall, must”), from Old Norse munu (“shall, must”), from Proto-Germanic *munaną.
Original Wiktionary entry and references ↗munEnglish (en) · Etymology 2Source text
From Old Norse muðr, munnr, from Proto-Germanic *munþaz, from Proto-Indo-European *ment-; Doublet of mouth.
Original Wiktionary entry and references ↗munEnglish (en) · Etymology 4Source text
Clipping of mundane.
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 →014
MODERN ENTRY POINTS
WORD DOSSIERS
nounhistorical form
emoji
An English borrowing of Japanese 絵文字, literally a picture-character compound built from 絵 e “picture” and 文字 moji “written character.”
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Old Saxon class-II weak verbdossier summary
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 ↗Old Saxon masculine i-stem noundossier summary
heti
Old Saxon heti is an attested noun, not a reconstructed Proto-Germanic form. Köbler prints the normalized citation form hėti* with a trailing asterisk, then gives three cited lexical loci whose inflections produce five witness readings: accusative singular heti at Heliand 1322 in manuscripts M, C, and V; dative singular heti at Genesis 60; and genitive singular hetias in the tenth-century Saxon Confession. No nominative singular appears in that inventory, but the exact surface heti is visibly written in Munich Cgm 25. The directly inspected Heliand line places the noun in the Beatitudes, where righteous people endure rîkioro manno heti endi harmquidi, powerful men's hostility or persecution and hostile speech. The Saxon Confession instead places hetias beside malice, envy, and slander among confessed wrongs. Those contexts establish a range broader than one private feeling without proving that persecution was the prehistoric root meaning. Fulk and Köbler analyze the Old Saxon comparison as an i-stem; Pfeifer describes the wider Germanic noun as an old es/os-stem, so the inherited morphological account remains public rather than falsely harmonized.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Old Saxon adjectivedossier summary
hōti
Old Saxon hōti is a normalized adjective headword supported by three Heliand loci and five reported witness readings: nominative plural hotie in manuscript M and huotia in C at line 5183; accusative singular hotean in M and huotian in C at line 5246; and nominative singular huoti in C at line 5285. The Munich forms hotie and hotean are directly visible in Cgm 25 scans 150 and 152; the three Cotton readings remain source-reported. Köbler nevertheless prints hōti* with a trailing star, so the mark cannot be reduced to “no nominative exists”: the same entry explicitly reports nominative huoti. The deeper genealogy splits. UT groups hōti with the inherited hate family under Pokorny's k̑ād- “hate, displeasure, uneasiness”; Köbler cross-references hatōn as a headword but gives the adjective a distinct etymology through Germanic *hwōtja- beside *hwōtō “threat” and Pokorny's *kʷē̆d- / *kʷō̆d- complex “bore, prick, stab,” whose wider reflexes include whetting and inciting. The graph preserves both lanes. It does not turn hostile intent into a timeless essence, infer exact pronunciation from spelling, or pretend that a dictionary cross-reference settles ancestry.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗021
ATTESTED / RECONSTRUCTED / BOUNDARY
HISTORICAL FORMS
0315
WHERE INTERPRETATION IS TESTED
CLAIMS & DISPUTES
SCHOLARLY DISPUTES / 11
resolvedestablishedposition text
Could hatia concern damaging or hindering a road?
Yes in the reviewed legal records. The Register to Jus Municipale Frisonum pairs hatijen with hindrien on the army road, and the Book of Rudolf places hatie in a ban concerning that road.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Were the Munich hatan and hatandiero readings directly inspected?
Yes. Full-resolution MDZ images of Cgm 25 scans 45 and 142 were visually checked against the line-level transcription and dictionary inventory.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Does the Munich manuscript date prove an 875 first use?
No. The manuscript is cataloged to the second half of the ninth century, while the Heliand work is dated circa 830–840. The numeric 875 is only a representative object date for timeline placement.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Can hatōn be pinned to one exact birthplace?
No. The Heliand’s poetic place of origin is unknown, the Munich manuscript is cataloged with Corvey, the Cotton witness was copied in England, and the gloss object remains unresolved.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Is Old Saxon heti itself attested?
Yes. Köbler reports accusative and dative singular heti, and the exact Munich Heliand 1322 token is visible in Cgm 25 folio 20r.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Was the Munich heti token directly inspected?
Yes. The full-resolution MDZ image of Cgm 25 scan 41 was visually checked against the dictionary and LWL transcription.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Does the representative year 875 prove a first use of heti?
No. The Heliand work is earlier than the Munich copy, and other witnesses have distinct or unresolved object dates. The numeric year only positions a second-half ninth-century manuscript.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Is Old Saxon hōti supported by attested forms?
Yes. Köbler reports five written inflectional readings at three Heliand loci, and Munich hotie and hotean are directly visible.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Was Munich hotie directly inspected?
Yes. Cgm 25 scan 150 visibly preserves hotie in the phrase an iuuuomu hugea hotie.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Was Munich hotean directly inspected?
Yes. Cgm 25 scan 152 visibly preserves hotean in the phrase thurh hotean hugi.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Can hōti be pinned to one exact birthplace?
No. Heliand's place of poetic origin is unresolved, and the Munich and Cotton objects belong to different transmission settings.
CONTRARIAN TRUTHS / 4
RANK 48GRADE Aranked reveal
Old Saxon hate crosses from verb into enemy noun inside one manuscript locus.
Köbler assigns hatōn four cited loci, but the evidence is not four neat tokens. Heliand 1451 alone varies between Munich hatan and Cotton haton. At Heliand 4915, Munich hatandiero and Cotton hettendero are indexed twice: under the verb as present-participial forms and under hėttiand as the lexicalized agent noun enemy. The Munich hatan and hatandiero pixels are directly inspected. The reveal is therefore grammatical, not mystical: one written formation sits at the boundary between haters and enemies. It does not prove that every enemy hates, that pursue was the first meaning, or that the four-locus dictionary count represents four manuscripts.
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 50GRADE Aranked reveal
The hostile adjective may belong to whet and threat, not hate—and its starred lemma still has a nominative.
Köbler's Old Saxon entry reports five written readings at three Heliand loci, including nominative hotie, huotia, and huoti, yet heads the entry hōti*. The asterisk therefore cannot be explained away as “no nominative survives.” More radically, the sources split at the root. UT groups hōti with hatōn and heti under the inherited hate etymon k̑ād-. Köbler's same entry cross-references hatōn but reconstructs a different *hwōtja- adjective beside *hwōtō “threat” and Pokorny's *kʷē̆d- / *kʷō̆d- family of boring, pricking, sharpening, whetting, and inciting. Munich hotie and hotean are directly visible in contexts of hostile minds and hostile intent; Cotton huotia, huotian, and huoti remain source-reported. The unveiling is not “hostility secretly means sharpened hate.” It is that rigorous etymology sometimes reveals two irreconcilable maps where a flat dictionary would print one arrow.
RANK 161GRADE Aranked reveal
Verbal is bigger than spoken.
The form is built on Latin verbum “word, verb,” and English verbal still covers what consists of words, what relates to verbs, spoken communication, exact wording, and verbal aptitude.
041
BOOKS / DICTIONARIES / ARTICLES / DATABASES
SOURCES
054
FIRST USES & HISTORICAL OBJECTS
ATTESTATION WITNESSES
DIRECTLY INSPECTEDprinted book
The PAPER-OFFICE entry in John Harris’s Lexicon technicum includes Letters of Intelligence among official papers communicated to the King’s Council.
intelligence / intelligence / 1704
Lexicon technicum: or, an universal English dictionary of arts and sciencesreporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗SOURCE REPORTEDlexical corpus record
Enemy’s mouth proverb
Feind / Feind / historical German, source-reported
Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob Grimm und Wilhelm Grimm — feind, m.witness excerpt / OPEN RECORD ↗SOURCE REPORTEDlexical corpus record
Derogatory term applied to an animal
fjándi / fjándi / Old Norse prose corpus; source-reported
Dictionary of Old Norse Prose — fjándi, masculine nounwitness excerpt / OPEN RECORD ↗SOURCE REPORTEDlexical corpus record
Register to Jus Municipale Frisonum
hatia / hatia / manuscript J dated 1520-1540; source-reported
Corpus Oudfries — hatia in the Register to Jus Municipale Frisonumreporting 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.