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 “Yse” 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.
Mayhew–Skeat (1888)
1888; pinned HTML transcription updated October 28, 2024Yse
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
aguacate
The Spanish word for the avocado tree and fruit, borrowed from Nahuatl āhuacatl, whose historical records include both fruit and testicle senses.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗avocado
An English reshaping of Spanish aguacate from Nahuatl āhuacatl, a word documented with both avocado and testicle senses.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗etymology
The study of the true or original sense of a word—and of the changes that made it what it is.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗kayık
The Turkish word for a small boat, continued from Old Turkic kayguk and analyzed within an internal Turkic history rather than the Inuit qayaq family.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗ATTESTED / RECONSTRUCTED / BOUNDARY
HISTORICAL FORMS
WHERE INTERPRETATION IS TESTED
CLAIMS & DISPUTES
SCHOLARLY DISPUTES / 12
Is the deepest root *leǵ- or *sleǵ-?
The traditional *leǵ- reconstruction remains widely represented, while published scholarship argues that the gather or collect root began with *s. The graph preserves both analyses.
Did -rīx mean exactly “king” in every compound name?
Not necessarily. The king or prince value is secure for the element, but scholarship distinguishes names where it is determinative from analyses in which it is semantically bleached or intensifying. Each host therefore requires its own compositional claim.
Are the opposite readings one polysemous word, merged historical homonyms, or a lexicographic convenience?
eDIL groups them in one headword but does not, by that editorial act alone, settle the full historical relationship among every love and hate occurrence.
Is the deepest brightness root *kand- or *(s)kend-?
The graph preserves both published analyses. The newer Merriam-Webster route uses *(s)kend- and explains candēre through a zero-grade stative formation; the prior *kand- route remains proposed.
Does the con- in conscience mean together or intensively?
Both analyses are published. Merriam-Webster presents com- plus scire, while American Heritage labels com- intensive; the dossier keeps the edge probable rather than forcing one exclusive gloss.
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.
Is hettende a verbal participle or a lexical noun meaning enemy?
The evidence supports both analyses in different editorial systems. Tío Sáenz lemmatizes hettende under hettan; Clark Hall calls it a participle of hatian; Bosworth–Toller lists hettende among the forms of the masculine noun hettend, “enemy.”
Does kayguk continue *kad- “fir tree” or a *kay- “turn, bend” base?
The reviewed article argues for a *kad- / *kad-ï analysis and discusses the older *kay- account. The historical kayguk stage is secure; the deeper derivation remains proposed.
Is there one completely settled Proto-Germanic *kund- reconstruction?
The English noun and adjective routes are well supported, but the exact prehistoric consonant, stem, and derivational analyses across the wider Germanic family are not reducible to one unqualified form. American Heritage prints *kundjaz and *kundiz; EWA discusses *kenþa-, *kunđa-, and *kunđi- plus unresolved voicing and borrowing questions.
Did Latin lēx originally mean a “collection of rules”?
That semantic bridge and the deeper gather-root connection are plausible published analyses, not an uncontested fact. The root shape *leǵ- versus *sleǵ- is also disputed.
Is the deepest root *leǵ- or *sleǵ-?
The traditional *leǵ- reconstruction remains widely represented, while published scholarship argues that the gather/collect root began with *s. The graph preserves both analyses.
Does tipi simply and literally mean “they dwell”?
The reviewed evidence safely derives thípi from a dwelling root; suffix analyses vary in how they label the final morphology, so the dossier promotes “dwelling” rather than one viral literal sentence.
CONTRARIAN TRUTHS / 2
The viral “it means testicle” story overclaims a real fact.
Nahuatl āhuacatl is documented with both avocado and testicle senses. The dictionaries establish polysemy and transmission through Spanish—not which sense named the other.
The anatomical avocado story is both true and overstated.
Nahuatl āhuacatl is historically recorded with fruit and testicle senses. That establishes polysemy—not which sense named the other.
BOOKS / DICTIONARIES / ARTICLES / DATABASES
SOURCES
No reviewed record in this collection contains “yse.” Absence describes this graph, not all of linguistic scholarship.
FIRST USES & HISTORICAL OBJECTS
ATTESTATION WITNESSES
No reviewed record in this collection contains “yse.” Absence describes this graph, not all of linguistic scholarship.
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.