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

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Fuß | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Fuß, m., ‘foot, base, pedestal, footing,’ from the equiv. MidHG. vuoȥ, OHG. fuoȥ, m., ‘foot’; a common Teut. and more remotely a common Aryan term for ‘foot’; comp. Goth. fôtus, OIc. fótr, AS. fôt, E. foot, Du. voet, OSax. fôt. The Teut. fôt- (weak subst.), from Aryan pôd-, which interchanged with Aryan pŏd- and pĕd in declension. Comp. Gr. ποδ- in πόδα, nom. sing. πούς (Æol. πώς); Lat. pĕd-em, nom. sing. pes; πέδιλον, ‘sandal,’ πεζός (for πεδjός), ‘on foot’; o gradation in Lat. tripudium; OInd. nom. sing. pâd (locat. padí), ‘foot,’ padá, neu., ‘tread, footstep.’ The e gradation is preserved in Teut. by OIc. fet, n., ‘step,’ but as a measure ‘foot’ (Lith. pėdà, ‘mark of the foot’); akin to OIc. feta, ‘to find the way,’ OHG. fëȥȥan, ‘to go.’ Respecting OIc. fjǫturr see Fessel; OIc. fit, f., ‘the skin of birds between the claws.’ MidE. fetlak, E. fetlock; thus too MidHG. viȥȥeloch, ‘hough,’ earlier ModHG. Fitzloch; they are derivatives (not compounds) of *fet-, ‘foot.’ —
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Flöte

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Flöte | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Flöte, f., from the equiv. MidHG. floite, vloite, f., ‘flute’; corresponds to Du. fluit, from OFr. flaüte, ModFr. flûte (whence also E. flute, Du. fluit); comp. Ital. flauto, ‘flute.’ In the idiom flötengehen, ‘to come to nothing,’ a LG. fleuten, ‘to flow’ (OLG. fliotan), appears; it meant orig. (in the 18th cent.) ‘to go through, run away.’
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Fohlen

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Fohlen | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Fohlen, n., ‘foal,’ from MidHG. vol, vole, OHG. folo, m., ‘colt, foal’; comp. Goth. fula, m., ‘foal (of an ass),’ OIc. fole, ‘foal’ (of a horse, rarely of an ass), AS. fola, m., E. foal; a term common to Teut. for the young of a horse or an ass, derived from pre-Teut. pelón-, Related by gradation to Gr. πῶλος, ‘colt,’ as a general term ‘young animal,’ and Lat. pullus, ‘the young,’ especially of fowls. See Füllen.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Forelle

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Forelle | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Forelle, f., ‘trout,’ with a foreign accent, for the genuine dialectal (Franc.) fórelle, still existing; dimin. of an older Forene (whence *Forenle, Forelle); comp. MidHG. fórelle, fórle, forhen, forhe, f., ‘trout,’ OHG. forhana, f., ‘trout’; comp. also OLG. forna, furnie, AS. fôrne. Probably not from Föhre, OHG. foraha, ‘the fish living near firs, in the brooks of fir forests.’ It is probably connected with the Aryan adjs. in the cognate languages, meaning ‘spotted, speckled.’ Teut. forhana, from pre-Teut. prknâ; comp. Sans. pṛ́çni, ‘speckled,’ and Gr. περκνός, ‘livid, dusky’ (πέρκη, ‘perch’).
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Form

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Form | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Form, f., ‘form, fashion, pattern, mould,’ from ModHG. (post-classical), forme, form, f., ‘form, shape,’ from Lat. and Rom. forma.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Formel

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Formel | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Formel, f., ‘formula, form,’ late ModHG., from Lat. formula.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Folge

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Folge | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Folge, f., ‘sequel, result,’ from MidHG. volge, f., ‘retinue, succession, forced service, pursuit,’ &c. OHG. sëlbfolga, ‘faction.’
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Flötz

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Flötz | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Flötz, n., older Fletze, n., ‘vein of ore,’ from MidHG. vlętze, n., ‘threshing-floor, vestibule, stratum,’ OHG. flęzzi; comp. AS. flętt, ‘floor of the hall,’ OIc. flet, ‘room, hall’; akin to the OIc. adj. flatr, OHG. flaȥ, ‘flat, wide, level,’ mentioned under Fladen and flach.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Flügel

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Flügel | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Flügel, m., ‘wing, leaf (of a folding door), aisle, grand piano,’ from the equiv. MidHG. vlügel, m..; comp. Du. vleugel, ‘wing’; a late derivative of fliegen. Strange to say, a common Teut. word is wanting. For an OAryan root, ‘to fly,’ see Feder (also Farn).
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Focke

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Focke | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Focke, f., ‘sail on the foremast,’ simply ModHG., borrowed from LG.; comp. Du. fok, ‘foremast,’ Dan. fok, Swed. fock, ‘foresail.’
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Forke

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Forke | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Forke, f., see Furke.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VI/Chapter LXIX

Chapter LXIX.
Celsus, however, asserts that the answer which we give is based upon a probable conjecture, admitting that he describes our answer in the following terms:  “Since God is great and difficult to see, He put His own Spirit into a body that resembled ours, and sent it down to us, that we might be enabled to hear Him and become acquainted with Him.” But the God and Father of all things is not the only being that is great in our judgment; for He has imparted (a share) of Himself and His greatness to His Only-begotten and First-born of every creature, in order that He, being the image of the invisible God, might preserve, even in His greatness, the image of the Father. For it was not possible that there could exist a well-proportioned, so to speak, and beautiful image of the invisible God, which did not at the same time preserve the image of His greatness. God, moreover, is in our judgment invisible, because He is not a body, while He can be seen by those who see with the heart, that is, the understanding; not indeed with any kind of heart, but with one which is pure. For it is inconsistent with the fitness of things that a polluted heart should look upon God; for that must be itself pure which would worthily behold that which is pure. Let it be granted, indeed, that God is “difficult to see,” yet He is not the only being who is so; for His Only-begotten also is “difficult to see.” For God the Word is “difficult to see,” and so also is His wisdom, by which God created all things. For who is capable of seeing the wisdom which is displayed in each individual part of the whole system of things, and by which God created every individual thing? It was not, then, because God was “difficult to see” that He sent God His Son to be an object “easy to be seen.” And because Celsus does not understand this, he has represented us as saying, “Because God was ‘difficult to see,’ He put His own Spirit in a body resembling ours, and sent it down to us, that we might be enabled to hear Him and become acquainted with Him.” Now, as we have stated, the Son also is “difficult to see,” because He is God the Word, through whom all things were made, and who “tabernacled amongst us.”
* ↑ εἰκότι στοχασμῷ.
* ↑ δυσθεώρητος.
* ↑ σύμμετρον.
* ↑ For οὑτωσί we have adopted the conjecture of Guietus, τούτου.
* ↑ ὡς εὐθεώρητον.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VI/Chapter LXV

Chapter LXV.
Celsus proceeds to say of God that “of Him are all things,” abandoning (in so speaking), I know not how, all his principles; while our Paul declares, that “of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things,” showing that He is the beginning of the substance of all things by the words “of Him,” and the bond of their subsistence by the expression “through Him,” and their final end by the terms “to Him.” Of a truth, God is of nothing. But when Celsus adds, that “He is not to be reached by word,” I make a distinction, and say that if he means the word that is in us—whether the word conceived in the mind, or the word that is uttered—I, too, admit that God is not to be reached by word. If, however, we attend to the passage, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” we are of opinion that God is to be reached by this Word, and is comprehended not by Him only, but by any one whatever to whom He may reveal the Father; and thus we shall prove the falsity of the assertion of Celsus, when he says, “Neither is God to be reached by word.” The statement, moreover, that “He cannot be expressed by name,” requires to be taken with a distinction. If he means, indeed, that there is no word or sign that can represent the attributes of God, the statement is true, since there are many qualities which cannot be indicated by words. Who, for example, could describe in words the difference betwixt the quality of sweetness in a palm and that in a fig? And who could distinguish and set forth in words the peculiar qualities of each individual thing?  It is no wonder, then, if in this way God cannot be described by name. But if you take the phrase to mean that it is possible to represent by words something of God’s attributes, in order to lead the hearer by the hand, as it were, and so enable him to comprehend something of God, so far as attainable by human nature, then there is no absurdity in saying that “He can be described by name.” And we make a similar distinction with regard to the expression, “for He has undergone no suffering that can be conveyed by words.” It is true that the Deity is beyond all suffering. And so much on this point.
* ↑ For αὐτοῦ Boherellus conjectures αὑτοῦ, and translates, “Propria ipse principia, quæ sunt Epicuri, subruens.”
* ↑ Rom. xi. 36.
* ↑ οὐδὲ λογῷ ἐφικτός.
* ↑ εἴτε ἐνδιαθέτῳ εἴτε καὶ προφορικῷ.
* ↑ John i. 1.
* ↑ οὐδὲν τῶν ἐν λέξεσι καὶ σημαινομένοις.
* ↑ χειραγωγῆσαι.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VI/Chapter LXVIII

Chapter LXVIII.
Accordingly, if Celsus were to ask us how we think we know God, and how we shall be saved by Him, we would answer that the Word of God, which entered into those who seek Him, or who accept Him when He appears, is able to make known and to reveal the Father, who was not seen (by any one) before the appearance of the Word. And who else is able to save and conduct the soul of man to the God of all things, save God the Word, who, “being in the beginning with God,” became flesh for the sake of those who had cleaved to the flesh, and had become as flesh, that He might be received by those who could not behold Him, inasmuch as He was the Word, and was with God, and was God? And discoursing in human form, and announcing Himself as flesh, He calls to Himself those who are flesh, that He may in the first place cause them to be transformed according to the Word that was made flesh, and afterwards may lead them upwards to behold Him as He was before He became flesh; so that they, receiving the benefit, and ascending from their great introduction to Him, which was according to the flesh, say, “Even if we have known Christ after the flesh, yet henceforth know we Him no more.” Therefore He became flesh, and having become flesh, “He tabernacled among us,” not dwelling without us; and after tabernacling and dwelling within us, He did not continue in the form in which He first presented Himself, but caused us to ascend to the lofty mountain of His word, and showed us His own glorious form, and the splendour of His garments; and not His own form alone, but that also of the spiritual law, which is Moses, seen in glory along with Jesus. He showed to us, moreover, all prophecy, which did not perish even after His incarnation, but was received up into heaven, and whose symbol was Elijah. And he who beheld these things could say, “We beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” Celsus, then, has exhibited considerable ignorance in the imaginary answer to his question which he puts into our mouth, “How we think we can know God? and how we know we shall be saved by Him?” for our answer is what we have just stated.
* ↑ σωματικῶς.
* ↑ [2 Cor. v. 16. S.]
* ↑ Cf. John i. 14.
* ↑ Cf. John i. 14.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VI/Chapter LXXII

Chapter LXXII.
It is therefore in vain that Celsus asserts, as one who knows not the nature of the Spirit of God, that “as the Son of God, who existed in a human body, is a Spirit, this very Son of God would not be immortal.” He next becomes confused in his statements, as if there were some of us who did not admit that God is a Spirit, but maintain that only with regard to His Son, and he thinks that he can answer us by saying that there “is no kind of spirit which lasts for ever.” This is much the same as if, when we term God a “consuming fire,” he were to say that there “is no kind of fire which lasts for ever;” not observing the sense in which we say that our God is a fire, and what the things are which He consumes, viz., sins, and wickedness. For it becomes a God of goodness, after each individual has shown, by his efforts, what kind of combatant he has been, to consume vice by the fire of His chastisements. He proceeds, in the next place, to assume what we do not maintain, that “God must necessarily have given up the ghost;” from which also it follows that Jesus could not have risen again with His body. For God would not have received back the spirit which He had surrendered after it had been stained by contact with the body. It is foolish, however, for us to answer statements as ours which were never made by us.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VI/Chapter LXVI

Chapter LXVI.
Let us look also at his next statement, in which he introduces, as it were, a certain person, who, after hearing what has been said, expresses himself in the following manner, “How, then, shall I know God? and how shall I learn the way that leads to Him? And how will you show Him to me? Because now, indeed, you throw darkness before my eyes, and I see nothing distinctly.” He then answers, as it were, the individual who is thus perplexed, and thinks that he assigns the reason why darkness has been poured upon the eyes of him who uttered the foregoing words, when he asserts that “those whom one would lead forth out of darkness into the brightness of light, being unable to withstand its splendours, have their power of vision affected and injured, and so imagine that they are smitten with blindness.” In answer to this, we would say that all those indeed sit in darkness, and are rooted in it, who fix their gaze upon the evil handiwork of painters, and moulders and sculptors, and who will not look upwards, and ascend in thought from all visible and sensible things, to the Creator of all things, who is light; while, on the other hand, every one is in light who has followed the radiance of the Word, who has shown in consequence of what ignorance, and impiety, and want of knowledge of divine things these objects were worshipped instead of God, and who has conducted the soul of him who desires to be saved towards the uncreated God, who is over all. For “the people that sat in darkness—the Gentiles—saw a great light, and to them who sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up,”—the God Jesus. No Christian, then, would give Celsus, or any accuser of the divine Word, the answer, “How shall I know God?” for each one of them knows God according to his capacity. And no one asks, “How shall I learn the way which leads to Him?” because he has heard Him who says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life,” and has tasted, in the course of the journey, the happiness which results from it. And not a single Christian would say to Celsus, “How will you show me God?”
* ↑ κολάζεσθαι.
* ↑ Cf. Matt. iv. 16. and Isa. ix. 2.
* ↑ John xiv. 6.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VI/Chapter LXXIII

Chapter LXXIII.
He proceeds to repeat himself, and after saying a great deal which he had said before, and ridiculing the birth of God from a virgin,—to which we have already replied as we best could,—he adds the following: “If God had wished to send down His Spirit from Himself, what need was there to breathe it into the womb of a woman? For as one who knew already how to form men, He could also have fashioned a body for this person, without casting His own Spirit into so much pollution; and in this way He would not have been received with incredulity, if He had derived His existence immediately from above.” He had made these remarks, because he knows not the pure and virgin birth, unaccompanied by any corruption, of that body which was to minister to the salvation of men. For, quoting the sayings of the Stoics, and affecting not to know the doctrine about “things indifferent,” he thinks that the divine nature was cast amid pollution, and was stained either by being in the body of a woman, until a body was formed around it, or by assuming a body. And in this he acts like those who imagine that the sun’s rays are polluted by dung and by foul-smelling bodies, and do not remain pure amid such things. If, however, according to the view of Celsus, the body of Jesus had been fashioned without generation, those who beheld the body would at once have believed that it had not been formed by generation; and yet an object, when seen, does not at the same time indicate the nature of that from which it has derived its origin. For example, suppose that there were some honey (placed before one) which had not been manufactured by bees, no one could tell from the taste or sight that it was not their workmanship, because the honey which comes from bees does not make known its origin by the senses, but experience alone can tell that it does not proceed from them. In the same way, too, experience teaches that wine comes from the vine, for taste does not enable us to distinguish (the wine) which comes from the vine. In the same manner, therefore, the visible body does not make known the manner of its existence. And you will be induced to accept this view, by (regarding) the heavenly bodies, whose existence and splendour we perceive as we gaze at them; and yet, I presume, their appearance does not suggest to us whether they are created or uncreated; and accordingly different opinions have existed on these points. And yet those who say that they are created are not agreed as to the manner of their creation, for their appearance does not suggest it, although the force of reason may have discovered that they are created, and how their creation was effected.
* ↑ εἰς τοσοῦτον μίασμα.
* ↑ Cf. book iv. capp. xiv. and lxviii.
* ↑ τῇ αἰσθήσει τὴν ἀρχὴν.
* ↑ τὸ αἰσθητὸν σῶμα.
* ↑ προσαχθήσῃ δὲ τῷ λεγομένῳ.
* ↑ κἃν βιασάμενος ὁ λόγος εὕρῃ.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VI/Chapter LXXIV

Chapter LXXIV.
After this he returns to the subject of Marcion’s opinions (having already spoken frequently of them), and states some of them correctly, while others he has misunderstood; these, however, it is not necessary for us to answer or refute.  Again, after this he brings forward the various arguments that may be urged on Marcion’s behalf, and also against him, enumerating what the opinions are which exonerate him from the charges, and what expose him to them; and when he desires to support the statement which declares that Jesus has been the subject of prophecy,—in order to found a charge against Marcion and his followers,—he distinctly asks, “How could he, who was punished in such a manner, be shown to be God’s Son, unless these things had been predicted of him?” He next proceeds to jest, and, as his custom is, to pour ridicule upon the subject, introducing “two sons of God, one the son of the Creator, and the other the son of Marcion’s God; and he portrays their single combats, saying that the Theomachies of the Fathers are like the battles between quails; or that the Fathers, becoming useless through age, and falling into their dotage do not meddle at all with one another, but leave their sons to fight it out.” The remark which he made formerly we will turn against himself: “What old woman would not be ashamed to lull a child to sleep with such stories as he has inserted in the work which he entitles A True Discourse? For when he ought seriously to apply himself to argument, he leaves serious argument aside, and betakes himself to jesting and buffoonery, imagining that he is writing mimes or scoffing verses; not observing that such a method of procedure defeats his purpose, which is to make us abandon Christianity and give in our adherence to his opinions, which, perhaps, had they been stated with some degree of gravity, would have appeared more likely to convince, whereas since he continues to ridicule, and scoff, and play the buffoon, we answer that it is because he has no argument of weight (for such he neither had, nor could understand) that he has betaken himself to such drivelling.”
* ↑ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ.
* ↑ ὀρτύγων.
* ↑ ληροῦντας.
* ↑ πραγματικῶς.
* ↑ ἐσεμνολόγει.
* ↑ σεμνῶν λόγων.
* ↑ τοσαύτην φλυαρίαν.