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 LOCAL2 source sections across 1 headword matching “Fil”. These are separate from the reviewed results below.
filEnglish (en) · Etymology 1Source text
From Swedish fil, a clipping of filmjölk. Also related to Finnish viili.
Original Wiktionary entry and references ↗filEnglish (en) · Etymology 2Source text
This section has no extracted narrative. Its source may contain templates or descendants; no ancestry has been inferred from them here.
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.
Mayhew–Skeat (1888)
1888; pinned HTML transcription updated October 28, 2024MODERN ENTRY POINTS
WORD DOSSIERS
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 ↗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 ↗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 ↗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 ↗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 ↗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 ↗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 ↗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 ↗liufs
The normalized Gothic adjective meaning dear or beloved, preserved through inflected manuscript forms including liuba and liubans.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗ATTESTED / RECONSTRUCTED / BOUNDARY
HISTORICAL FORMS
No reviewed record in this collection contains “fil.” Absence describes this graph, not all of linguistic scholarship.
WHERE INTERPRETATION IS TESTED
CLAIMS & DISPUTES
SCHOLARLY DISPUTES / 12
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.
Can the nd-ending alone distinguish enemy from one who hates?
No. The noun and productive participle share surface inflection. Case, complementation, agreement, and context resolve some passages, but Project Wulfila leaves 21 candidates lexically and morphosyntactically ambiguous.
Does sem frændr en eigi sem fiandr prove the ordinary friend sense?
ONP files the phrase under friend but flags possible kin sense 3; Cleasby–Vigfússon treats it as a possible alliterative exception. The citation does not force one clean answer.
Does freondum at Beowulf 1018 identify every person as a modern intimate friend?
No. The local text says Heorot was filled with freondum, but the manuscript alone does not recover each referent’s exact social relationship or a modern intimacy category.
Does dfiunt or fiunt securely name the Devil?
No. ONW reports that most editions read fiunt, Heyne proposed an error for diufil, both can render Latin diabolus, and the initial D has competing analyses.
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.
Do the written endings alone settle the participles’ case and gender?
No. Project Wulfila gives masculine or neuter genitive plural for hatandane and masculine nominative or accusative plural for hatandans. The clauses resolve the contextual readings through syntax and Greek alignment, but the surface forms remain formally syncretic.
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.
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.
Does hōti belong to the hate family or the threat-whet-incite family?
The reviewed sources disagree. UT files hōti under k̑ād- with hate reflexes; Köbler reconstructs *hwōtja- beside *hwōtō and the *kʷē̆d- / *kʷō̆d- complex.
Does Dfiunt / fiunt securely name the Devil in the earliest Old Dutch record?
No. ONW reports that most editions read fiunt, Heyne proposed an error for diufil, both can render Latin diabolus, and the initial D has competing analyses.
Does the surviving corpus contain 42 secure verb tokens?
No. Project Wulfila exposes 42 candidates under fijan, but only 13 are verified, eight more are lexically unambiguous but unverified, and 21 are explicitly shared with the fijands noun inventory.
CONTRARIAN TRUTHS / 7
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Old English friend was a loving-agent noun—but not merely a modern intimate.
OED and Bosworth–Toller preserve the morphology behind frēond: an inherited nd-stem formation tied to the verb meaning free or love. The same sources then refuse a slogan-sized definition. Old English uses cover close companion, ally or non-enemy, relation, friend of God, friend versus foe, and friends acting as arbitrators. Cotton MS Vitellius A XV folio 152r visibly preserves freondum in a hall filled with favored people at Beowulf 1018. The unveiling is not that friend secretly means love in every sentence; it is that a loving-agent fossil became a socially versatile noun before modern English existed.
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.
BOOKS / DICTIONARIES / ARTICLES / DATABASES
SOURCES
On the syntax of the Agent nouns in Gothic: the case of nd-formations
Daniel Ayora Estevan / 2023
publisherAUDIT EVERY USE ↗Lemma fijan — Gothic dictionary and 42-token candidate inventory
Project Wulfila editors · Wilhelm Streitberg / 2026
author or editorAUDIT EVERY USE ↗Lemma fijands — Gothic enemy noun and 26-token candidate inventory
Project Wulfila editors · Wilhelm Streitberg / 2026
author or editorAUDIT EVERY USE ↗Gothic Bible word analysis — Luke 1:71, hatandane
Project Wulfila editors · Wilhelm Streitberg / 2026
author or editorAUDIT EVERY USE ↗Gothic Bible word analysis — Luke 6:27, hatandans
Project Wulfila editors · Wilhelm Streitberg / 2026
author or editorAUDIT EVERY USE ↗Die gotische Bibel — Wörterbuch entry hatis
Wilhelm Streitberg / 1910
publisherAUDIT EVERY USE ↗Gothic Bible word analysis — John 7:23, hatizoþ
Project Wulfila editors · Wilhelm Streitberg / 2026
author or editorAUDIT EVERY USE ↗Lemma hatan — Gothic dictionary and occurrence inventory
Project Wulfila editors · Wilhelm Streitberg / 2026
author or editorAUDIT EVERY USE ↗Lemma *liufs — Gothic dictionary
Project Wulfila editors; Wilhelm Streitberg / 2026
author or editorAUDIT EVERY USE ↗Lemma hatis — Gothic dictionary and fifteen-token occurrence inventory
Project Wulfila editors · Wilhelm Streitberg / 2026
author or editorAUDIT EVERY USE ↗Lemma hatizon — class-II Gothic verb and one-occurrence inventory
Project Wulfila editors · Wilhelm Streitberg / 2026
author or editorAUDIT EVERY USE ↗Lemma hatjan — Gothic dictionary and occurrence inventory
Project Wulfila editors · Wilhelm Streitberg / 2026
author or editorAUDIT EVERY USE ↗FIRST USES & HISTORICAL OBJECTS
ATTESTATION WITNESSES
Beowulf manuscript, Heorot filled with friends
frēond / frēond / late 10th or early 11th century
Cotton MS Vitellius A XV, folio 152r — Electronic Beowulf facsimilereporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗Beowulf, Heorot filled with friends
frēond / friend / Old English, source-reported
Oxford English Dictionary — friend, n. & adj.reporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗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.