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 LOCAL1 source section across 1 headword matching “anus”. These are separate from the reviewed results below.
anusEnglish (en) · Unnumbered etymologySource text
Either from Middle French anus or Latin ānus (“ring, anus”), from Proto-Indo-European *h₁eh₂nos (“ring”). First attested in 1658. See also anal, annular, annelid.
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.
Lewis’s Elementary Latin Dictionary
1890 American Book Company edition; pinned Perseus XML digitization0112
MODERN ENTRY POINTS
WORD DOSSIERS
Middle Irish noundossier summary
cais
eDIL separates two Irish headwords written cais. The first, also recorded as caise, is explicitly explained both as love and as hate; its cited passages and glossary equations range from searc and grádh "love" to miscais and mioscais "hatred", with context deciding individual readings. One Éigse line is tentatively translated so that the same visible form occurs on both sides: "my love ... is met by hatred(?)". The question mark matters. The second eDIL headword cais means "eye" and is excluded from this semantic lineage. These records establish a remarkable lexicographic opposition, not one timeless essence, a chronology from love to hate, or proof that every occurrence belongs to one historically indivisible sense. John T. Koch compares the noun with Proto-Celtic *katsi- < *kad-t/si- and a wider *kad- family, but that ancestry and its proposed Germanic comparison remain open. eDIL itself generally supplies etymologies only selectively. No manuscript pixels were directly inspected, no earliest-use or historical-frequency claim is made, and no exact pronunciation is invented.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Swedish common-gender noundossier summary
fiende
The ordinary Swedish noun for an enemy, opponent, hostile state, or figurative threat continues Old Swedish fiande or fiände and an inherited Germanic present-participial formation: literally the hating one. Svenska Akademiens current dictionary calls the word Common Germanic and gives the original force hatande; SAOB and Hellquist independently derive the noun from the fi(j)- hate verb behind Gothic fijan and Old Norse fjá. Modern Swedish hata belongs to a separate Germanic hat- family, so fiende is not transparently built from the verb Swedish speakers now use for hate. Historical Swedish also used Fienden for the Devil, but that branch is not the word’s only or current central meaning. All medieval and early-modern examples here are source-reported lexical records, not directly inspected manuscript objects.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Danish common-gender noundossier summary
fjende
Modern Danish fjende is the ordinary noun for a person, state, force, ideological opponent, or figurative thing that harms something else. Den Danske Ordbog derives it from Old Norse fjándi, compares German Feind, and identifies the older formation as a present participle of a verb corresponding to Old Norse fjá, to hate or persecute. Gammeldansk Ordbog records fiende broadly from 1100–1300. Ordbog over det danske Sprog preserves fiende, finde, and related spellings, an ordinary enemy sense, military and animal uses, abstract threats, and a special religious Devil branch. Holbergordbog shows that Fiende could still scan as either three syllables or two, alongside Fiænde, Finde, Fînde, and clipped Fiend. The word is therefore a grammatical fossil, not a current psychological definition: a lexicalized one-who-hates became the ordinary Danish enemy noun and accumulated broad contextual work. The current pronunciations are dictionary records, not retrojections into medieval Danish. No manuscript or print object is claimed as directly inspected.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Old Norse verbdossier summary
fjá
Old Norse fjá was a verb meaning to hate. The Dictionary of Old Norse Prose classifies it as poetic and exposes zero prose citations; its glossarium links point to the early form fía and the reconstructed Proto-Germanic *fi(j)ēn-. Cleasby and Vigfússon call the verb obsolete, compare Gothic fijan and Old English feon or fjan, and locate it in Hýmiskviða 22 and Lokasenna 35, with the reflexive fjásk in Skírnismál 33. Fritzner independently gives the same three locations. The normalized verse texts preserve three different grammatical surfaces: goð fjá in Hýmiskviða, mangi fíár in Lokasenna, and Freyr fiásk in Skírnismál. Lexicon Poeticum likewise reports three poetic records, but explicitly warns that its concordance is unreviewed and that dates should be checked. These are source-reported lexical and edited-text records, not directly inspected manuscript objects, and three records in the reviewed poetic concordance are not a census of every Old Norse utterance. The finite verb became a tiny poetic fossil while its inherited participial relative fjándi became the ordinary enemy noun and accumulated 222 citations in ONP's prose corpus. Those corpus totals are not directly frequency-comparable, but the contrast makes the grammatical survival visible. The generated possible runic inscription shown by modern dictionary transcriptions is not historical evidence and is excluded. No historical sound recording exists, so the dossier does not fabricate one exact pronunciation.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Old Norse masculine noundossier summary
fjándi
Old Norse fjándi is a masculine noun whose inherited shape still exposes a prehistoric agent formation. Cleasby and Vigfússon compare Gothic fiands, Old English feond, German Feind, Swedish fiende, and Danish fjende, identify the nd as participial, and gloss the older formation as properly a hater. They then distinguish the ordinary enemy sense from a post-Christian fiend development. The University of Copenhagen Dictionary of Old Norse Prose supplies 222 citations and six semantic zones: enemy or opponent; devil, monster, or demon; evil spirit; pagan god; the Devil or Satan; and a derogatory term for a hated or bewitched person, animal, or object. Lexicon Poeticum independently exposes 49 poetic records, including source-reported tenth-century enemy uses and later Christian fiend uses, while warning that its concordance and dates require checking. The noun therefore does not possess one timeless true meaning: an inherited lexicalized hater became an ordinary enemy word, and the branch later accumulated several demonic and derogatory senses. The displayed pronunciation is an editorial normalized approximation, not recorded historical audio. No underlying manuscript object is claimed as directly inspected in this dossier.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Old High German strong masculine noundossier summary
fīant
Old High German fīant—written fîant and fîjant in the Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch's length-marking convention—was already a strong masculine noun meaning enemy, opponent, or adversary. The dictionary documents personal, public and military, spiritual, and specifically Devil senses across a large variant and inflectional record. Its most revealing evidence is grammatical: in fixed formulas, usually without an article, the old participial character could still shine through. Fîant uuesan could mean to be hostile, hate someone, or wish someone ill; fîant mahhôn meant make hostile, and zi fîante tuon could mean regard as an enemy or hate. The companion fîên article independently preserves the live weak verb to hate in eighth- and ninth-century Alemannic manuscripts. The noun therefore shows a lexical fossil whose older verbal force remained locally legible without ceasing to be a noun. The displayed pronunciation is an editorial normalized approximation, not a recorded historical audio object. All displayed Old High German passages are inspected dictionary or text-edition records, not directly inspected manuscript objects.
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 Frisian weak verbdossier summary
hatia
Old Frisian hatia is a weak verb whose lexicographic field extends beyond an inward feeling. Hofmann and Popkema give hate or reject, damage, and a feud-language expression for harming or pursuing someone as an enemy. A May 2026 Corpus Oudfries search for word or lemma hatia returns six records in 235,462 tokens, but those are not six instances of this verb. Buma's critical note on Brokmer B 101 explicitly identifies its written hatia as atia "rear" with prothetic h, and Nijdam translates the passage as a poor mother being unable to feed her children. That token is excluded from the hate lineage. The five relevant corpus records occur in legal, road, family, and theological contexts: forms hatijen, hatie, hata, and hatien can concern harming or hindering on a road, a writing or event going against someone, or God hating perjury, lying speech, and false witnesses. The current corpus count is a bounded research surface, not a frequency estimate for medieval speech or a claim about every surviving witness. The underlying manuscripts were not directly inspected for this dossier, no earliest-use claim is made, and no exact historical pronunciation is invented.
OPEN THE FULL LINEAGE ↗Gothic class-II weak-verb lemmacontrarian claim
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 ↗Old Norse noun, chiefly neuterdossier summary
hatr
An Old Norse noun for hatred, enmity, or spite. The University of Copenhagen Dictionary of Old Norse Prose gives the main neuter entry 54 citations, while a separately analyzed masculine entry has only one citation and is flagged as possibly an elementary error. The neuter corpus also contains one cautiously proposed mockery or scorn sense aligned with Latin irrisio. A c.1150-1200 manuscript visibly preserves Hatr in a line ONP transcribes Hatr hafa þeir engla and aligns with Latin Odium. The reviewed ancestry joins the Germanic *hatiz- family, preserves the disputed *ḱh₂d-es- and *ḱeh₂d- comparison, and then stops.
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 ↗021
ATTESTED / RECONSTRUCTED / BOUNDARY
HISTORICAL FORMS
0319
WHERE INTERPRETATION IS TESTED
CLAIMS & DISPUTES
SCHOLARLY DISPUTES / 12
openestablishedposition text
What is the exact earliest surviving fjá token?
Not established here. The reviewed sources supply poem and stanza locations but no directly inspected manuscript object, exact composition date, or uncontested first-use year.
openprobableposition text
Can the exact Old Norse pronunciation be heard or uniquely recovered?
No. The displayed IPA is a normalized scholarly approximation; manuscript spelling and comparative phonology cannot reproduce one recorded medieval voice.
openprobableposition text
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.
openestablishedposition text
What is the exact earliest surviving fīēn token?
Not established here. AWB supplies a bounded manuscript horizon and edition locators but no single inspected first object or exact year.
openestablishedposition text
Is the c1200 homily token the earliest surviving use?
Not established. It is an early directly inspected object, but the review did not compare every manuscript witness, poetic attribution, variant, or dating claim.
openestablishedposition text
Is any one reviewed token the earliest surviving use of the verb?
Not established. The Book of Rudolf has an older text-date range but a later manuscript, and this review did not compare every witness, edition, or dating claim.
openprobableposition text
What is the earliest secure English humiliation witness?
Merriam-Webster publishes the Middle English form humiliacioun, and Harvard’s Chaucer corpus indexes one occurrence. This review did not inspect an underlying manuscript, prove an exact composition year, or establish that no earlier English occurrence survives.
openprobableposition text
What is the earliest secure English humility witness?
Merriam-Webster reports the fourteenth century broadly. The Middle English Dictionary supplies a circa-1390 Chaucer citation with humylitee, but this review did not inspect its underlying manuscript witness, and the located citation does not prove that no earlier English occurrence survives.
openestablishedposition text
Do ho- and huo- spellings prove one precisely dated sound change?
No. They establish witness variation across M and C. The available spellings, manuscript dates, and editorial macrons do not by themselves recover one exact phonetic sequence.
openestablishedposition text
Can one exact Old Saxon pronunciation of hōti be recovered?
No. Spellings, cases, manuscript variation, and editorial vowel length do not supply recorded speech or one completely dated phonetic reconstruction.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Is the asterisked dough trail a chain of written words?
No. *daigaz, *dhoigh-o-, *dheigh-, and *dheig̑h- are comparative reconstructions, not manuscript spellings.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Were the medieval and early-modern witness objects directly inspected?
No. This review inspected dictionary records and a scanned etymological dictionary page, not the Skåne-Lagen manuscript, Söderwall’s underlying medieval objects, or the cited early-modern print pages.
CONTRARIAN TRUTHS / 7
RANK 38GRADE Aranked reveal
Old High German fīant was already a noun—but in fixed phrases its old participial character could still shine through.
AWB calls fîant / fîjant a strong masculine noun, then isolates fixed formulas where its old participial character can still shine through. Fîant uuesan could mean be hostile, hate someone, or wish someone ill; fîant mahhôn meant make hostile; zi fîante tuon could mean regard as an enemy or hate. Beside it, AWB records the live weak verb fîên, to hate, in eighth- and ninth-century Alemannic manuscripts. The word is therefore more revealing than a simple literal gloss: it is a lexicalized noun whose older verbal architecture remained locally visible in syntax.
RANK 41GRADE Aranked reveal
The enemy fossil and the living hate verb coexisted in Old High German.
AWB records fîên as a weak verb only in eighth- and ninth-century Alemannic manuscripts, but the pocket preserves an infinitive, present participle, preterite, and past participle across hate, hostility, detestation, and rejection. Beside it, fîant was already a strong masculine enemy noun whose old participial character could still shine through in fixed phrases. Old High German therefore preserves both sides of the history at once: the live verbal family and the noun already lexicalized from it. The evidence reveals a grammatical relationship, not the psychology of every enemy and not a securely recovered Proto-Indo-European essence.
RANK 43GRADE Aranked reveal
Old Norse hate was action, contempt, humiliation, and feeling inside one verb.
ONP's 101-citation prose article orders four active senses before its participial and reciprocal branches: persecute; despise, reject, or cast aside; mock or humiliate; and hate, despise, or stand hostile. Fritzner independently moves from pursuit and destruction to ordinary hate. A c1200 manuscript leaf visibly writes hata in a command to love chastity and hate no person. The article's sense order is not a chronology, and the poetic concordance is explicitly unreviewed; the reveal is the documented semantic range, not an invented first essence.
RANK 45GRADE Aranked reveal
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.
RANK 48GRADE Acontrarian claim
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 59GRADE A-ranked reveal
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.
RANK 158GRADE Acontrarian claim
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.
042
BOOKS / DICTIONARIES / ARTICLES / DATABASES
SOURCES
digitized primary source3 CLAIM LINKS
AM 674 a 4°, Bókin dýra — manuscript record and images
Arnamagnæan Collection · Dictionary of Old Norse Prose · Handrit.is / 2026
source titleAUDIT EVERY USE ↗digitized primary source3 CLAIM LINKS
ONP manuscript record — Holm perg 15 4° with folio 89v scan
Sprogsamlinger · University of Copenhagen / 1200
publisherAUDIT EVERY USE ↗0512
FIRST USES & HISTORICAL OBJECTS
ATTESTATION WITNESSES
DIRECTLY INSPECTEDmanuscript
Heliand manuscript M, enemy command
hatan / hatōn / Heliand composition circa 830–840; Munich manuscript second half of the ninth century
Heliand — BSB Cgm 25, scan 45, folio 22r, hatan locusreporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗DIRECTLY INSPECTEDmanuscript
Heliand manuscript M, arrest scene
hatan / hatōn / Heliand composition circa 830–840; Munich manuscript second half of the ninth century
Heliand — BSB Cgm 25, scan 142, hatandiero locusreporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗DIRECTLY INSPECTEDmanuscript
Heliand manuscript M, Beatitudes persecution clause
heti / heti / Heliand composition circa 830–840; Munich manuscript second half of the ninth century
Heliand — BSB Cgm 25, scan 41, folio 20r, heti locusreporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗DIRECTLY INSPECTEDmanuscript
Heliand manuscript M, Pilate question
hōti / hōti / Heliand composition circa 830–840; Munich manuscript second half of the ninth century
Heliand — BSB Cgm 25, scan 150, hotie locusreporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗DIRECTLY INSPECTEDmanuscript
Heliand manuscript M, accusation before Pilate
hōti / hōti / Heliand composition circa 830–840; Munich manuscript second half of the ninth century
Heliand — BSB Cgm 25, scan 152, hotean locusreporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗DIRECTLY INSPECTEDmanuscript
Beowulf manuscript, foe’s footprint
fēond / fēond / late 10th or early 11th century
Cotton MS Vitellius A XV, folio 180v — Electronic Beowulf facsimilereporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗DIRECTLY INSPECTEDmanuscript
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 ↗DIRECTLY INSPECTEDmanuscript
Bókin dýra, Elucidarius
hatr / hatr / c.1150-1200
AM 674 a 4°, Bókin dýra — manuscript record and imagesreporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗DIRECTLY INSPECTEDmanuscript
Holm perg 15 4° folio 89v
hata / hata / c1200
ONP manuscript record — Holm perg 15 4° with folio 89v scanreporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗SOURCE REPORTEDlexical corpus record
Hirðskrá manuscript record
hatr / hatr / c.1300, source-reported
Dictionary of Old Norse Prose — ¹hatr, masculine analysisreporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗SOURCE REPORTEDlexical corpus record
Codex Ambrosianus A corpus record, Ephesians 2:3
hatis / hatis / Gothic manuscript corpus, date not normalized
Gothic Bible word analysis — Ephesians 2:3, hatize and hatisreporting source / OPEN RECORD ↗SOURCE REPORTEDlexical corpus record
Codex Ambrosianus B corpus record, Ephesians 2:3
hatis / hatis / Gothic manuscript corpus, date not normalized
Gothic Bible word analysis — Ephesians 2:3, hatize and hatisreporting 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.