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 “error”. These are separate from the reviewed results below.
errorEnglish (en) · Unnumbered etymologySource text
From Middle English errour, from Anglo-Norman errour, borrowed from Old French error, from Latin error (“wandering about”, noun), derived from the verb errō (“to wander, to err”). Cognate with Gothic 𐌰𐌹𐍂𐌶𐌴𐌹 (airzei, “error”), Gothic 𐌰𐌹𐍂𐌶𐌾𐌰𐌽 (airzjan, “to lead astray”). More at err. By surface analysis, err + -or (suffix forming nouns of quality, state, or condition). Displaced native Old English dwild (“error”).
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 digitization011
MODERN ENTRY POINTS
WORD DOSSIERS
020
ATTESTED / RECONSTRUCTED / BOUNDARY
HISTORICAL FORMS
No reviewed record in this collection contains “error.” Absence describes this graph, not all of linguistic scholarship.
036
WHERE INTERPRETATION IS TESTED
CLAIMS & DISPUTES
SCHOLARLY DISPUTES / 5
openproposedposition text
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.
openproposedposition text
Is there also a masculine hatr?
ONP maintains a separate masculine analysis, but it rests on one citation and the editors flag it as possibly an elementary error. The possibility remains visible without being promoted to parity with the 54-citation neuter entry.
openproposedposition text
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.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Is the Roman tenth-member story invented?
No. The Latin and historical punishment sense is real; the error is using etymology to ban later English meanings.
resolvedestablishedposition text
Do the two ONP entries prove two equally secure Old Norse nouns?
No. Editorial separation records an analytical problem; the 54-to-1 citation imbalance and explicit error warning make equal security unjustified.
CONTRARIAN TRUTHS / 1
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.
040
BOOKS / DICTIONARIES / ARTICLES / DATABASES
SOURCES
No reviewed record in this collection contains “error.” Absence describes this graph, not all of linguistic scholarship.
050
FIRST USES & HISTORICAL OBJECTS
ATTESTATION WITNESSES
No reviewed record in this collection contains “error.” Absence describes this graph, not all of linguistic scholarship.
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.