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 “Singular” 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 →Singular
The dictionary could not be reached right now. Open the original dictionary entry ↗
Read the complete entry and references ↗ · Contribute a cited dossier
018
MODERN ENTRY POINTS
WORD DOSSIERS
onomastic compound elementhistorical form
-rīx
An attested Gaulish second member meaning “king” or “prince,” visible in compound personal names such as Dumnorix and Vercingetorix and inherited from Proto-Celtic *rīx-s.
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 ↗Old High German weak verbdossier summary
fīēn
Old High German fīēn—printed fîên in the Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch—was a weak verb meaning to hate, not love, be hostile to, detest, or reject. The official dictionary says it is attested only in Alemannic manuscripts of the eighth and ninth centuries, then inventories an infinitive fien, present participle fiendi, second-person singular preterite fietos, and accusative plural masculine past participle fieta. Three rule-text records concern hating discipline, one’s own will, or no person; gloss records align the participial forms with Latin exosus or exosos; and an Esther gloss aligns fien with detestari. These are source-reported edition and dictionary records, not directly inspected manuscript objects, and the broad manuscript horizon does not identify one exact first token. A separate twelfth-century article printed fien [sic] with the gloss ubere is explicitly left uninterpreted by the dictionary and is not merged into this hate verb. Beside the verb, Old High German had the already lexicalized enemy noun fīant, whose old participial character could still shine through in fixed phrases. The graph therefore shows a living daughter verb beside a grammatical fossil without pretending that either attested form is the reconstructed Proto-Germanic word itself. No historical sound recording exists and the dossier does not display a fabricated phonetic certainty.
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 ↗nounhistorical form
rí
The Old Irish word for a king, with genitive ríg, inherited from Proto-Celtic *rīx-s in the Indo-European king branch.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗noundossier summary
rājā
The Sanskrit nominative singular meaning king, sovereign, prince, or chief, belonging to the consonant stem rājan-.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗nounhistorical form
rēx
The Latin third-declension noun for a king, ruler, chief, or leader, cited as rēx, rēgis and built on the bound stem rēg-.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗023
ATTESTED / RECONSTRUCTED / BOUNDARY
HISTORICAL FORMS
*
Proto-Celtic / Indo-European
*rīx-s
king, nominative singular
- DATE
- Proto-Celtic
- MATCH
- gloss
- DOSSIERS
- 2
Latin / Indo-European
rēg-
king stem used outside the nominative singular
- DATE
- Latin bound lexical stem
- MATCH
- gloss
- DOSSIERS
- 1
Latin / Indo-European
rēgis
of a king; genitive singular of rēx
- DATE
- Latin antiquity
- MATCH
- gloss
- DOSSIERS
- 1
0313
WHERE INTERPRETATION IS TESTED
CLAIMS & DISPUTES
SCHOLARLY DISPUTES / 12
openprobableposition text
Is the Proto-Germanic parent exactly *xatēnan ~ *xatōjanan?
The comparative verb family is secure, but its notation and subclass are not singular. Orel prints the alternatives; Merriam-Webster foregrounds *hatōjan- for the related inherited verb formation.
openprobableposition text
How should Ephesians 2:3 hatize and hatis be parsed?
The witnesses disagree in form and the analytical layers disagree in labeling. Project Wulfila’s current morphology lists A hatize as genitive plural and B hatis as nominative or accusative singular; Braune calls B hatis a consonantal genitive beside A hatizē, while Streitberg’s later teaching glossary calls genitive hatis erroneous.
openprobableposition text
Is the Proto-Germanic parent exactly *xatēnan ~ *xatōjanan?
The comparative family is secure, but notation is not singular. Orel prints the alternation while Köbler prints Germanic *hatōn.
openprobableposition text
Is the Proto-Germanic parent exactly *xatēnan ~ *xatōjanan?
The comparative verb family is secure, but its notation and subclass are not singular. Orel prints *xatēnan ~ *xatōjanan, while Starling prints *xatōn-, -ēn- beside other related formations.
openprobableposition text
Does the trailing star specifically mean that the nominative singular is unattested?
That is a plausible reading because Köbler lists only accusative, dative, and genitive evidence, but no explicit legend defining this exact trailing star was located in the reviewed source.
openestablishedposition text
Does the trailing star mean that no nominative form is attested?
No simple rule of that kind fits this entry: Köbler explicitly reports nominative plural hotie and huotia plus nominative singular huoti beneath hōti*. The exact convention remains unstated in the located material.
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
Does the six-cell table preserve the complete Old Dutch paradigm?
No. It attests nominative and genitive singular plus nominative, genitive, dative, and accusative plural. Unrecorded cells must not be invented.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Does the etymology prove that every enemy truly hates?
No. Historical word formation does not determine the psychology of every referent. The corpus includes singular, plural, religious, military, and collective opponents.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Do fien, fiendi, fietos, and fieta represent four unrelated words?
No. AWB inventories them inside one weak-verb paradigm as infinitive, present participle, second-person singular preterite, and past participle.
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.
CONTRARIAN TRUTHS / 1
RANK 102GRADE Aranked reveal
A truce was grammatically plural.
Modern singular truce continues Middle English trewes, the plural of an agreement noun from Old English trēow “fidelity.” A ceasefire is historically a set of pledged terms.
040
BOOKS / DICTIONARIES / ARTICLES / DATABASES
SOURCES
No reviewed record in this collection contains “singular.” Absence describes this graph, not all of linguistic scholarship.
051
FIRST USES & HISTORICAL OBJECTS
ATTESTATION WITNESSES
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.