PERMANENT SOURCE RECORD
ALL SOURCES ↗BIBLIOGRAPHIC IDENTITYmdz-cgm25-scan45-hatan
SOURCE
RECORD.
One work. Every claim that depends on it. No citation without a consequence you can inspect.
10 PUBLIC LINKS INTO THE GRAPH.
This count excludes duplicate dossier-path citations. Open the claims below to see exactly how the source is used.
digitized primary sourcemdz-cgm25-scan45-hatan
Heliand — BSB Cgm 25, scan 45, folio 22r, hatan locus
- AUTHOR / EDITOR
- Bayerische Staatsbibliothek · Münchener DigitalisierungsZentrum
- YEAR
- 875
- PUBLISHER
- Bayerische Staatsbibliothek
- DOI
- Not recorded
- SOURCE TYPE
- digitized primary source
- EXTERNAL RECORD
- OPEN ORIGINAL ↗
011
CONTRARIAN TRUTH CLAIMS
RANKED REVEALS THAT CITE THIS SOURCE
RANK 48GRADE Asupports
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.
*ḱeh₂d-
*ḱeh₂d- → *ḱh₂d-es- → *hatiz- → *xatēnan ~ *xatōjanan → hatan → hatōn
Cgm 25 scan 45, folio 22r, fiund hatan lineDirectly verifies the Munich infinitive reading.
hatōn dossier ↗truth record ↗89UNVEILING
025
SCHOLARLY DISAGREEMENT
DISPUTE POSITIONS THAT CITE THIS SOURCE
resolvedsupportsestablished
Is hatan the normalized Old Saxon headword?
No. It is the exact manuscript-M infinitive at Heliand 1451. Köbler normalizes the lexeme as hatōn and reports manuscript C haton at the same locus.
Cgm 25 scan 45, folio 22rDirectly verifies the exact candidate spelling hatan.
resolvedsupportsestablished
Were the Munich hatan and hatandiero readings directly inspected?
Yes. Full-resolution MDZ images of Cgm 25 scans 45 and 142 were visually checked against the line-level transcription and dictionary inventory.
Full-resolution Cgm 25 scan 45Provides the first directly inspected artifact.
resolvedsupportsestablished
Does the Munich manuscript date prove an 875 first use?
No. The manuscript is cataloged to the second half of the ninth century, while the Heliand work is dated circa 830–840. The numeric 875 is only a representative object date for timeline placement.
Item metadata and scan 45Separates the second-half ninth-century object date from the observed token.
resolvedcontextestablished
Does the Cotton manuscript date equal the Heliand composition date?
No. Biblissima dates the copy to the middle or second half of the tenth century; the Heliand work itself is earlier.
Item description: Heliand work created around 830/840Provides the distinct work-level chronology.
resolvedsupportsestablished
Can hatōn be pinned to one exact birthplace?
No. The Heliand’s poetic place of origin is unknown, the Munich manuscript is cataloged with Corvey, the Cotton witness was copied in England, and the gloss object remains unresolved.
Item metadata: Corvey and second half ninth century; description notes unknown poetic originSeparates cataloged manuscript attribution from the place where the poem or lexeme originated.
031
CANONICAL RELATIONSHIP CLAIMS
EDGES THAT CITE THIS SOURCE
EDGE 1253supportsestablished
hatōn → hatan
Old Saxon → Old Saxon · orthographic variant
- SOUND
- The normalized lemma hatōn abstracts over written infinitive hatan in Munich manuscript M and haton in manuscript C. The macron and final-vowel normalization are editorial analyses; this edge does not claim that one token changed directly into the other.
- MEANING
- No meaning change is assigned. Both infinitive readings belong to the same reviewed hate verb, while their object dates and manuscript identities remain separate.
- SCHOLAR / EDITOR
- Gerhard Köbler · University of Texas Linguistics Research Center · SET-U manuscript review
Cgm 25 scan 45, folio 22r, line containing fiund hatanDirectly verifies the Munich manuscript spelling hatan without turning it into a second lexeme.
041
LEXICAL ATTESTATIONS
WITNESSES REPORTED BY THIS SOURCE
hatōnINSPECTED
hatan
Heliand manuscript M, enemy command
OPEN WITNESS 486 ↗050
COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE
COGNATES, DESCENDANTS, AND RELATIVES
No comparative-relative record currently cites this source.
062
GEOGRAPHIC AND TEMPORAL CLAIMS
JOURNEY STAGES THAT CITE THIS SOURCE
stage 3supports
Old Saxon Heliand textual horizon
Supplies the Heliand work-level dating while separating the later Munich copy.
Item description: work created around 830/840 · broadstage 4supports
Corvey catalog attribution
Supplies the manuscript attribution, date, and object identity.
Item metadata: Corvey; date second half of the ninth century; shelfmark Cgm 25 · approximate070
NON-GENEALOGICAL CONNECTIONS
HISTORICAL CONTEXT, KEPT SEPARATE
No non-genealogical context link currently cites this source.
081
WORD-FAMILY REUSE
DOSSIERS THAT DEPEND ON THIS SOURCE
1 entry-scoped citations map reviewed dossier paths onto the canonical claims above.