OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Mus

| This annotated version expands the abbreviations in the original entry Mus. | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Annotated entries in Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Mus, neuter, ‘pap, porridge, connection of fruit,’ from Middle High German and Old High German muos, neuter, ‘cooked food, especially pap-like food; food, meal’; Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon môs, neuter, ‘food.’ The assumed Gothic *môsa-, ‘food,’ may be connected with mati-, ‘food,’ while *môsa- may represent *môtta- with a dental suffix; in that case the root would be Teutonic mat, pre-Teutonic mā̆d, ‘to cook, prepare food’ (for Gothic mats, ‘food,’ see Messer and mästen). To this is allied Gemüse, ‘vegetables,’ from Middle High German gemüese (Old High German *gimuosi), neuter, which as a derivative presumes the more general sense of Old High German muos. See Musteil.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Muskel

| This annotated version expands the abbreviations in the original entry Muskel. | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Annotated entries in Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Muskel, masculine, ‘muscle’ (of the body), Modern High German only, borrowed from the equivalent Latin musculus.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Muße

| This annotated version expands the abbreviations in the original entry Muße. | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Annotated entries in Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Muße, feminine, ‘leisure, ease,’ from Middle High German muoȥe, Old High German muoȥa, feminine, ‘leisure, ease, inactivity,’ Old High German also ‘possibility, suitable occasion’; allied to the Old Teutonic preterite present môtan (see müssen). —
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Mädchen

| This annotated version expands the abbreviations in the original entry Mädchen. | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Annotated entries in Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Mädchen, neuter, ‘maiden, girl, servant,’ Modern High German only, a derivative of Magd, with the diminutive suffix -chen (in Upper German Maidle, Mädel, &c, with diminutive l.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Muschel

| This annotated version expands the abbreviations in the original entry Muschel. | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Annotated entries in Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Muschel, feminine, from the equivalent Middle High German muschel, Old High German muscula, feminine, ‘mussel, shellfish.’ Borrowed from the equivalent Latin musculus, masculine.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Musteil

| This annotated version expands the abbreviations in the original entry Musteil. | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Annotated entries in Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Musteil, masculine and neuter, allied to Mus (Gemüse), “half the stock of provisions left on the death of a husband, and what remains thirty days later when an inventory is made; one half belongs to the widow and the other to the heirs” (Lessing); the share of the widow is called Musteil. Even in Middle High German (in the Middle German of the Saxon Code) musteile for *muosteile occurs.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Muster

| This annotated version expands the abbreviations in the original entry Muster. | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Annotated entries in Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Muster, neuter, ‘sample, model, paragon,’ first occurs in early Modern High German, from the equivalent Italian mostra; compare French montre (English muster, Dutch monster), ‘sample.’ Allied to Latin monstrare.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Mutterkrebs

| This annotated version expands the abbreviations in the original entry Mutterkrebs. | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Annotated entries in Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Mutterkrebs, ‘female crayfish,’ properly ‘a crayfish at the period when it casts its shell,’ had originally nothing to do with Mutter; it contains rather Old High German muter, High German Mauser (Latin mûtare). Compare mausern.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter LXV

Chapter LXV.
And since Jesus, in teaching His disciples not to be guilty of rashness, gave them the precept, “If they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another; and if they persecute you in the other, flee again into a third,” to which teaching He added the example of a consistent life, acting so as not to expose Himself to danger rashly, or unseasonably, or without good grounds; from this Celsus takes occasion to bring a malicious and slanderous accusation,—the Jew whom he brings forward saying to Jesus, “In company with your disciples you go and hide yourself in different places.” Now similar to what has thus been made the ground of a slanderous charge against Jesus and His disciples, do we say was the conduct recorded of Aristotle. This philosopher, seeing that a court was about to be summoned to try him, on the ground of his being guilty of impiety on account of certain of his philosophical tenets which the Athenians regarded as impious, withdrew from Athens, and fixed his school in Chalcis, defending his course of procedure to his friends by saying, “Let us depart from Athens, that we may not give the Athenians a handle for incurring guilt a second time, as formerly in the case of Socrates, and so prevent them from committing a second act of impiety against philosophy.” He further says, “that Jesus went about with His disciples, and obtained His livelihood in a disgraceful and importunate manner.” Let him show wherein lay the disgraceful and importunate element in their manner of subsistence. For it is related in the Gospels, that there were certain women who had been healed of their diseases, among whom also was Susanna, who from their own possessions afforded the disciples the means of support. And who is there among philosophers, that, when devoting himself to the service of his acquaintances, is not in the habit of receiving from them what is needful for his wants? Or is it only in them that such acts are proper and becoming; but when the disciples of Jesus do the same, they are accused by Celsus of obtaining their livelihood by disgraceful importunity?
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter LXVII

Chapter LXVII.
After the above, this Jew of Celsus, as if he were a Greek who loved learning, and were well instructed in Greek literature, continues: “The old mythological fables, which attributed a divine origin to Perseus, and Amphion, and Æacus, and Minos, were not believed by us. Nevertheless, that they might not appear unworthy of credit, they represented the deeds of these personages as great and wonderful, and truly beyond the power of man; but what hast thou done that is noble or wonderful either in deed or in word? Thou hast made no manifestation to us, although they challenged you in the temple to exhibit some unmistakeable sign that you were the Son of God.” In reply to which we have to say: Let the Greeks show to us, among those who have been enumerated, any one whose deeds have been marked by a utility and splendour extending to after generations, and which have been so great as to produce a belief in the fables which represented them as of divine descent. But these Greeks can show us nothing regarding those men of whom they speak, which is even inferior by a great degree to what Jesus did; unless they take us back to their fables and histories, wishing us to believe them without any reasonable grounds, and to discredit the Gospel accounts even after the clearest evidence. For we assert that the whole habitable world contains evidence of the works of Jesus, in the existence of those Churches of God which have been founded through Him by those who have been converted from the practice of innumerable sins. And the name of Jesus can still remove distractions from the minds of men, and expel demons, and also take away diseases; and produce a marvellous meekness of spirit and complete change of character, and a humanity, and goodness, and gentleness in those individuals who do not feign themselves to be Christians for the sake of subsistence or the supply of any mortal wants, but who have honestly accepted the doctrine concerning God and Christ, and the judgment to come.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter LXX

Chapter LXX.
He asserts, moreover, that “the body of a god is not nourished with such food (as was that of Jesus),” since he is able to prove from the Gospel narratives both that He partook of food, and food of a particular kind. Well, be it so. Let him assert that He ate the passover with His disciples, when He not only used the words, “With desire have I desired to eat this passover with you,” but also actually partook of the same. And let him say also, that He experienced the sensation of thirst beside the well of Jacob, and drank of the water of the well. In what respect do these facts militate against what we have said respecting the nature of His body? Moreover, it appears indubitable that after His resurrection He ate a piece of fish; for, according to our view, He assumed a (true) body, as one born of a woman.  “But,” objects Celsus, “the body of a god does not make use of such a voice as that of Jesus, nor employ such a method of persuasion as he.” These are, indeed, trifling and altogether contemptible objections. For our reply to him will be, that he who is believed among the Greeks to be a god, viz., the Pythian and Didymean Apollo, makes use of such a voice for his Pythian priestess at Delphi, and for his prophetess at Miletus; and yet neither the Pythian nor Didymean is charged by the Greeks with not being a god, nor any other Grecian deity whose worship is established in one place. And it was far better, surely, that a god should employ a voice which, on account of its being uttered with power, should produce an indescribable sort of persuasion in the minds of the hearers.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter LXXI

Chapter LXXI.
Continuing to pour abuse upon Jesus as one who, on account of his impiety and wicked opinions, was, so to speak, hated by God, he asserts that “these tenets of his were those of a wicked and God-hated sorcerer.” And yet, if the name and the thing be properly examined, it will be found an impossibility that man should be hated by God, seeing God loves all existing things, and “hateth nothing of what He has made,” for He created nothing in a spirit of hatred. And if certain expressions in the prophets convey such an impression, they are to be interpreted in accordance with the general principle by which Scripture employs such language with regard to God as if He were subject to human affections. But what reply need be made to him who, while professing to bring foreward credible statements, thinks himself bound to make use of calumnies and slanders against Jesus, as if He were a wicked sorcerer? Such is not the procedure of one who seeks to make good his case, but of one who is in an ignorant and unphilosophic state of mind, inasmuch as the proper course is to state the case, and candidly to investigate it; and, according to the best of his ability, to bring forward what occurs to him with regard to it. But as the Jew of Celsus has, with the above remarks, brought to a close his charges against Jesus, so we also shall here bring to a termination the contents of our first book in reply to him. And if God bestow the gift of that truth which destroys all falsehood, agreeably to the words of the prayer, “Cut them off in thy truth,” we shall begin, in what follows, the consideration of the second appearance of the Jew, in which he is represented by Celsus as addressing those who have become converts to Jesus.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter VI

Chapter VI.
After this, through the influence of some motive which is unknown to me, Celsus asserts that it is by the names of certain demons, and by the use of incantations, that the Christians appear to be possessed of (miraculous) power; hinting, I suppose, at the practices of those who expel evil spirits by incantations. And here he manifestly appears to malign the Gospel. For it is not by incantations that Christians seem to prevail (over evil spirits), but by the name of Jesus, accompanied by the announcement of the narratives which relate to Him; for the repetition of these has frequently been the means of driving demons out of men, especially when those who repeated them did so in a sound and genuinely believing spirit.  Such power, indeed, does the name of Jesus possess over evil spirits, that there have been instances where it was effectual, when it was pronounced even by bad men, which Jesus Himself taught (would be the case), when He said:  “Many shall say to Me in that day, In Thy name we have cast out devils, and done many wonderful works.” Whether Celsus omitted this from intentional malignity, or from ignorance, I do not know. And he next proceeds to bring a charge against the Saviour Himself, alleging that it was by means of sorcery that He was able to accomplish the wonders which He performed; and that foreseeing that others would attain the same knowledge, and do the same things, making a boast of doing them by help of the power of God, He excludes such from His kingdom. And his accusation is, that if they are justly excluded, while He Himself is guilty of the same practices, He is a wicked man; but if He is not guilty of wickedness in doing such things, neither are they who do the same as He. But even if it be impossible to show by what power Jesus wrought these miracles, it is clear that Christians employ no spells or incantations, but the simple name of Jesus, and certain other words in which they repose faith, according to the holy Scriptures.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter VIII

Chapter VIII.
It is with a certain eloquence, indeed, that he appears to advocate the cause of those who bear witness to the truth of Christianity by their death, in the following words: “And I do not maintain that if a man, who has adopted a system of good doctrine, is to incur danger from men on that account, he should either apostatize, or feign apostasy, or openly deny his opinions.” And he condemns those who, while holding the Christian views, either pretend that they do not, or deny them, saying that “he who holds a certain opinion ought not to feign recantation, or publicly disown it.” And here Celsus must be convicted of self-contradiction. For from other treatises of his it is ascertained that he was an Epicurean; but here, because he thought that he could assail Christianity with better effect by not professing the opinions of Epicurus, he pretends that there is a something better in man than the earthly part of his nature, which is akin to God, and says that “they in whom this element, viz., the soul, is in a healthy condition, are ever seeking after their kindred nature, meaning God, and are ever desiring to hear something about Him, and to call it to remembrance.” Observe now the insincerity of his character! Having said a little before, that “the man who had embraced a system of good doctrine ought not, even if exposed to danger on that account from men, to disavow it, or pretend that he had done so, nor yet openly disown it,” he now involves himself in all manner of contradictions. For he knew that if he acknowledged himself an Epicurean, he would not obtain any credit when accusing those who, in any degree, introduce the doctrine of Providence, and who place a God over the world. And we have heard that there were two individuals of the name of Celsus, both of whom were Epicureans; the earlier of the two having lived in the time of Nero, but this one in that of Adrian, and later.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter V

Chapter V.
Treating of the regulations respecting idolatry as being peculiar to Christianity, Celsus establishes their correctness, saying that the Christians do not consider those to be gods that are made with hands, on the ground that it is not in conformity with right reason (to suppose) that images, fashioned by the most worthless and depraved of workmen, and in many instances also provided by wicked men, can be (regarded as) gods. In what follows, however, wishing to show that this is a common opinion, and one not first discovered by Christianity, he quotes a saying of Heraclitus to this effect:  “That those who draw near to lifeless images, as if they were gods, act in a similar manner to those who would enter into conversation with houses.” Respecting this, then, we have to say, that ideas were implanted in the minds of men like the principles of morality, from which not only Heraclitus, but any other Greek or barbarian, might by reflection have deduced the same conclusion; for he states that the Persians also were of the same opinion, quoting Herodotus as his authority. We also can add to these Zeno of Citium, who in his Polity, says: “And there will be no need to build temples, for nothing ought to be regarded as sacred, or of much value, or holy, which is the work of builders and of mean men.” It is evident, then, with respect to this opinion (as well as others), that there has been engraven upon the hearts of men by the finger of God a sense of the duty that is required.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter VII

Chapter VII.
Moreover, since he frequently calls the Christian doctrine a secret system (of belief), we must confute him on this point also, since almost the entire world is better acquainted with what Christians preach than with the favourite opinions of philosophers. For who is ignorant of the statement that Jesus was born of a virgin, and that He was crucified, and that His resurrection is an article of faith among many, and that a general judgment is announced to come, in which the wicked are to be punished according to their deserts, and the righteous to be duly rewarded? And yet the mystery of the resurrection, not being understood, is made a subject of ridicule among unbelievers. In these circumstances, to speak of the Christian doctrine as a secret system, is altogether absurd. But that there should be certain doctrines, not made known to the multitude, which are (revealed) after the exoteric ones have been taught, is not a peculiarity of Christianity alone, but also of philosophic systems, in which certain truths are exoteric and others esoteric. Some of the hearers of Pythagoras were content with his ipse dixit; while others were taught in secret those doctrines which were not deemed fit to be communicated to profane and insufficiently prepared ears. Moreover, all the mysteries that are celebrated everywhere throughout Greece and barbarous countries, although held in secret, have no discredit thrown upon them, so that it is in vain that he endeavours to calumniate the secret doctrines of Christianity, seeing he does not correctly understand its nature.
# An Ainu–English–Japanese Dictionary/Chapter III

No sonant letter begins a sentence, but in composition surds are sometimes changed into sonants. These changes are as follows:—
| K | becomes | g. |
| P | ............ | b. |
| T | ............ | d. |
Chi is sometimes changed into t before utara, the u of which is dropped; thus:—
    Heikattara for heikachi utara, “lads.” Matkattara for matkachi utara, “girls.”
He or hei becomes se or sei in some places, thus:—
    Sekachi for hekachi, “a lad.”
Ko becomes cho in some places and vice versa. Thus:—
    Choropok for koropok, “underneath.”
Pa becomes cha in some districts: Thus:—
    Uchashkuma for upaskuma, “preaching.”
N becomes m before b or m; thus:—
    Tambe for tan be, “this thing.” Tammatkachi for tan matkachi; “this girl.”
Ra and Ri become n before n and ra, and t before t, thus:—
    Kan nangoro for Kara nangoro, “will make.” Oan-raige for Oara raige, “to kill outright.” Oattuye for ara tuye, “to cut through.” Ashin-no for Ashiri no, “newly.”
Ro becomes t before chi and t, and n before n.
    Ku kot chisei for ku goro chisei, “my house.” Ku kottoi for ku goro toi, “my garden.” Ku konnishpa for ku-goro-nishpa “my master.”
​Ru becomes n before n; thus: An gun’ ne for an guru ne, “it is a person.”
When one word ending with a vowel is immediately followed by another commencing with a vowel, the final vowel of the first word is in some cases dropped; thus:—
    Moshir’ ebitta for moshiri ebitta, “the whole world.” Oya moshir’ un guru for Oya moshiri un guru, “a foreigner.” Utar’ obitta for Utara, obitta “everybody.”
I becomes y before a, as, yayamkiri “to recognize,” while о is sometimes heard for u, as, anno for annu, “to defeat.”
Care must always be taken to pronounce the double consonants as in speaking Italian or Japanese. As:—
    Ine, “where?” Inne, “a multitude.” Ota, “sand” Otta, “in,” “to.” Shina, “to lace up” Shinna, “a difference.” Tane, “now” Tanne, “long.”
When it is desirable to give special clearness or emphasis to a noun or adjective ending with a vowel, such final vowel may be reduplicated preceded by the consonant h; thus :—
    Nimaki or Nimakihi, “a tooth.” To or Toho, “a day;” “a lake.” Pirika or Pirikaha, “good,” Kunne or Kunnehe “black,” “dark.”
There are some cases in which it is customary to reduplicate the final vowel, such reduplication being almost universally practiced by the Ainu. As:—For example:—
    Chaha instead of cha, “twigs.” Hochihi ,,  ,, hochi “a sum.” Wen-kurihi instead of wenkuri, “a rain cloud.”