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

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/kahl | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ kahl, adj., from the equiv. MidHG. kal (gen. kalwer), ‘bald,’ OHG. chalo (gen. chalwêr, chalawêr); comp. Du. kaal, AS. calu, E. callow. Probably borrowed from Lat. calvus (Sans. khalvâta, ‘bald-headed’), whence Fr. chauve, since Lat. crispus and capillare have also been introduced into Teut.; comp. AS. cyrsp, E. crisp, OHG. and MidHG. krisp, ‘curly,’ and Goth. kapillôn, ‘to crop one's hair.’ Probably the Teutons and the Romans were equally struck by each other's method of wearing the hair. Other etymologists are inclined to connect Teut. kalwa- with OSlov. golŭ, ‘bare, naked.’
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/kalfatern

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/kalfatern | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ kalfatern, vb., ‘to caulk a ship,’ from Du. kalefateren; the latter is derived from Fr. calfater.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book V/Chapter LII

Chapter LII.
But the statement of Celsus which we wish to examine at present is the following: “Let us then pass over the refutations which might be adduced against the claims of their teacher, and let him be regarded as really an angel. But is he the first and only one who came (to men), or were there others before him?  If they should say that he is the only one, they would be convicted of telling lies against themselves. For they assert that on many occasions others came, and sixty or seventy of them together, and that these became wicked, and were cast under the earth and punished with chains, and that from this source originate the warm springs, which are their tears; and, moreover, that there came an angel to the tomb of this said being—according to some, indeed, one, but according to others, two—who answered the women that he had arisen. For the Son of God could not himself, as it seems, open the tomb, but needed the help of another to roll away the stone. And again, on account of the pregnancy of Mary, there came an angel to the carpenter, and once more another angel, in order that they might take up the young Child and flee away (into Egypt). But what need is there to particularize everything, or to count up the number of angels said to have been sent to Moses, and others amongst them? If, then, others were sent, it is manifest that he also came from the same God. But he may be supposed to have the appearance of announcing something of greater importance (than those who preceded him), as if the Jews had been committing sin, or corrupting their religion, or doing deeds of impiety; for these things are obscurely hinted at.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book V/Chapter LIV

Chapter LIV.
In the next place, he proceeds to answer himself as he thinks fit in the following terms: “And so he is not the only one who is recorded to have visited the human race, as even those who, under pretext of teaching in the name of Jesus, have apostatized from the Creator as an inferior being, and have given in their adherence to one who is a superior God and father of him who visited (the world), assert that before him certain beings came from the Creator to visit the human race.” Now, as it is in the spirit of truth that we investigate all that relates to the subject, we shall remark that it is asserted by Apelles, the celebrated disciple of Marcion, who became the founder of a certain sect, and who treated the writings of the Jews as fabulous, that Jesus is the only one that came to visit the human race. Even against him, then, who maintained that Jesus was the only one that came from God to men, it would be in vain for Celsus to quote the statements regarding the descent of other angels, seeing Apelles discredits, as we have already mentioned, the miraculous narratives of the Jewish Scriptures; and much more will he decline to admit what Celsus has adduced, from not understanding the contents of the book of Enoch. No one, then, convicts us of falsehood, or of making contradictory assertions, as if we maintained both that our Saviour was the only being that ever came to men, and yet that many others came on different occasions. And in a most confused manner, moreover, does he adduce, when examining the subject of the visits of angels to men, what he has derived, without seeing its meaning, from the contents of the book of Enoch; for he does not appear to have read the passages in question, nor to have been aware that the books which bear the name Enoch do not at all circulate in the Churches as divine, although it is from this source that he might be supposed to have obtained the statement, that “sixty or seventy angels descended at the same time, who fell into a state of wickedness.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book V/Chapter LIX

Chapter LIX.
Celsus then continues: “The Jews accordingly, and these (clearly meaning the Christians), have the same God;” and as if advancing a proposition which would not be conceded, he proceeds to make the following assertion: “It is certain, indeed, that the members of the great Church admit this, and adopt as true the accounts regarding the creation of the world which are current among the Jews, viz., concerning the six days and the seventh;” on which day, as the Scripture says, God “ceased” from His works, retiring into the contemplation of Himself, but on which, as Celsus says (who does not abide by the letter of the history, and who does not understand its meaning), God “rested,”—a term which is not found in the record. With respect, however, to the creation of the world, and the “rest which is reserved after it for the people of God,” the subject is extensive, and mystical, and profound, and difficult of explanation. In the next place, as it appears to me, from a desire to fill up his book, and to give it an appearance of importance, he recklessly adds certain statements, such as the following, relating to the first man, of whom he says: “We give the same account as do the Jews, and deduce the same genealogy from him as they do.” However, as regards “the conspiracies of brothers against one another,” we know of none such, save that Cain conspired against Abel, and Esau against Jacob; but not Abel against Cain, nor Jacob against Esau: for if this had been the case, Celsus would have been correct in saying that we give the same accounts as do the Jews of “the conspiracies of brothers against one another.” Let it be granted, however, that we speak of the same descent into Egypt as they, and of their return thence, which was not a “flight,” as Celsus considers it to have been, what does that avail towards founding an accusation against us or against the Jews? Here, indeed, he thought to cast ridicule upon us, when, in speaking of the Hebrew people, he termed their exodus a “flight;” but when it was his business to investigate the account of the punishments inflicted by God upon Egypt, that topic he purposely passed by in silence.
* ↑ τῶν ἀπὸ μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας.
* ↑ κατέπαυσεν.
* ↑ ἀναπαυσάμενος.
* ↑ σαββατισμοῦ.
* ↑ τὴν ἐκεῖθεν ἐπάνοδον.
* ↑ φυγήν.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book V/Chapter LV

Chapter LV.
But, that we may grant to him in a spirit of candour what he has not discovered in the contents of the book of Genesis, that “the sons of God, seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to them wives of all whom they chose,” we shall nevertheless even on this point persuade those who are capable of understanding the meaning of the prophet, that even before us there was one who referred this narrative to the doctrine regarding souls, which became possessed with a desire for the corporeal life of men, and this in metaphorical language, he said, was termed “daughters of men.” But whatever may be the meaning of the “sons of God desiring to possess the daughters of men,” it will not at all contribute to prove that Jesus was not the only one who visited mankind as an angel, and who manifestly became the Saviour and benefactor of all those who depart from the flood of wickedness. Then, mixing up and confusing whatever he had at any time heard, or had anywhere found written—whether held to be of divine origin among Christians or not—he adds: “The sixty or seventy who descended together were cast under the earth, and were punished with chains.” And he quotes (as from the book of Enoch, but without naming it) the following: “And hence it is that the tears of these angels are warm springs,”—a thing neither mentioned nor heard of in the Churches of God! For no one was ever so foolish as to materialize into human tears those which were shed by the angels who had come down from heaven. And if it were right to pass a jest upon what is advanced against us in a serious spirit by Celsus, we might observe that no one would ever have said that hot springs, the greater part of which are fresh water, were the tears of the angels, since tears are saltish in their nature, unless indeed the angels, in the opinion of Celsus, shed tears which are fresh.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book V/Chapter LI

Chapter LI.
But seeing that we have answered to the best of our ability the charges brought by Celsus against the Jews and their doctrine, let us proceed to consider what follows, and to prove that it is no empty boast on our part when we make a profession of knowing the great God, and that we have not been led away by any juggling tricks of Moses (as Celsus imagines), or even of our own Saviour Jesus; but that for a good end we listen to the God who speaks in Moses, and have accepted Jesus, whom he testifies to be God, as the Son of God, in hope of receiving the best rewards if we regulate our lives according to His word. And we shall willingly pass over what we have already stated by way of anticipation on the points, “whence we came and who is our leader, and what law proceeded from Him.” And if Celsus would maintain that there is no difference between us and the Egyptians, who worship the goat, or the ram, or the crocodile, or the ox, or the river-horse, or the dog-faced baboon, or the cat, he can ascertain if it be so, and so may any other who thinks alike on the subject. We, however, have to the best of our ability defended ourselves at great length in the preceding pages on the subject of the honour which we render to our Jesus, pointing out that we have found the better part; and that in showing that the truth which is contained in the teaching of Jesus Christ is pure and unmixed with error, we are not commending ourselves, but our Teacher, to whom testimony was borne through many witnesses by the Supreme God and the prophetic writings among the Jews, and by the very clearness of the case itself, for it is demonstrated that He could not have accomplished such mighty works without the divine help.
* ↑ γοητείᾳ.
* ↑ τὸν κυνοκέφαλον.
* ↑ ὅτι κρεῖττον εὕρομεν.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book V/Chapter LVII

Chapter LVII.
Now, that miraculous appearances have sometimes been witnessed by human beings, is related by the Greeks; and not only by those of them who might be suspected of composing fabulous narratives, but also by those who have given every evidence of being genuine philosophers, and of having related with perfect truth what had happened to them. Accounts of this kind we have read in the writings of Chrysippus of Soli, and also some things of the same kind relating to Pythagoras; as well as in some of the more recent writers who lived a very short time ago, as in the treatise of Plutarch of Chæronea “on the Soul,” and in the second book of the work of Numenius the Pythagorean on the “Incorruptibility of the Soul.” Now, when such accounts are related by the Greeks, and especially by the philosophers among them, they are not to be received with mockery and ridicule, nor to be regarded as fictions and fables; but when those who are devoted to the God of all things, and who endure all kinds of injury, even to death itself, rather than allow a falsehood to escape their lips regarding God, announce the appearances of angels which they have themselves witnessed, they are to be deemed unworthy of belief, and their words are not to be regarded as true! Now it is opposed to sound reason to judge in this way whether individuals are speaking truth or falsehood. For those who act honestly, only after a long and careful examination into the details of a subject, slowly and cautiously express their opinion of the veracity or falsehood of this or that person with regard to the marvels which they may relate; since it is the case that neither do all men show themselves worthy of belief, nor do all make it distinctly evident that they are relating to men only fictions and fables.  Moreover, regarding the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, we have this remark to make, that it is not at all wonderful if, on such an occasion, either one or two angels should have appeared to announce that Jesus had risen from the dead, and to provide for the safety of those who believed in such an event to the advantage of their souls. Nor does it appear to me at all unreasonable, that those who believe in the resurrection of Jesus, and who manifest, as a fruit of their faith not to be lightly esteemed, their possession of a virtuous life, and their withdrawal from the flood of evils, should not be unattended by angels who lend their help in accomplishing their conversion to God.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book V/Chapter LVI

Chapter LVI.
Proceeding immediately after to mix up and compare with one another things that are dissimilar, and incapable of being united, he subjoins to his statement regarding the sixty or seventy angels who came down from heaven, and who, according to him, shed fountains of warm water for tears, the following: “It is related also that there came to the tomb of Jesus himself, according to some, two angels, according to others, one;” having failed to notice, I think, that Matthew and Mark speak of one, and Luke and John of two, which statements are not contradictory. For they who mention “one,” say that it was he who rolled away the stone from the sepulchre; while they who mention “two,” refer to those who appeared in shining raiment to the women that repaired to the sepulchre, or who were seen within sitting in white garments. Each of these occurrences might now be demonstrated to have actually taken place, and to be indicative of a figurative meaning existing in these “phenomena,” (and intelligible) to those who were prepared to behold the resurrection of the Word. Such a task, however, does not belong to our present purpose, but rather to an exposition of the Gospel.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book V/Chapter LX

Chapter LX.
If, however, it be necessary to express ourselves with precision in our answer to Celsus, who thinks that we hold the same opinions on the matters in question as do the Jews, we would say that we both agree that the books (of Scripture) were written by the Spirit of God, but that we do not agree about the meaning of their contents; for we do not regulate our lives like the Jews, because we are of opinion that the literal acceptation of the laws is not that which conveys the meaning of the legislation. And we maintain, that “when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart,” because the meaning of the law of Moses has been concealed from those who have not welcomed the way which is by Jesus Christ. But we know that if one turn to the Lord (for “the Lord is that Spirit”), the veil being taken away, “he beholds, as in a mirror with unveiled face, the glory of the Lord” in those thoughts which are concealed in their literal expression, and to his own glory becomes a participator of the divine glory; the term “face” being used figuratively for the “understanding,” as one would call it without a figure, in which is the face of the “inner man,” filled with light and glory, flowing from the true comprehension of the contents of the law.
* ↑ 2 Cor. iii. 15.
* ↑ ἀσπασαμένοις.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book V/Chapter LIII

Chapter LIII.
The preceding remarks might suffice as an answer to the charges of Celsus, so far as regards those points in which our Saviour Jesus Christ is made the subject of special investigation. But that we may avoid the appearance of intentionally passing over any portion of his work, as if we were unable to meet him, let us, even at the risk of being tautological (since we are challenged to this by Celsus), endeavour as far as we can with all due brevity to continue our discourse, since perhaps something either more precise or more novel may occur to us upon the several topics. He says, indeed, that “he has omitted the refutations which have been adduced against the claims which Christians advance on behalf of their teacher,” although he has not omitted anything which he was able to bring forward, as is manifest from his previous language, but makes this statement only as an empty rhetorical device. That we are not refuted, however, on the subject of our great Saviour, although the accuser may appear to refute us, will be manifest to those who peruse in a spirit of truth-loving investigation all that is predicted and recorded of Him. And, in the next place, since he considers that he makes a concession in saying of the Saviour, “Let him appear to be really an angel,” we reply that we do not accept of such a concession from Celsus; but we look to the work of Him who came to visit the whole human race in His word and teaching, as each one of His adherents was capable of receiving Him. And this was the work of one who, as the prophecy regarding Him said, was not simply an angel, but the “Angel of the great counsel:” for He announced to men the great counsel of the God and Father of all things regarding them, (saying) of those who yield themselves up to a life of pure religion, that they ascend by means of their great deeds to God; but of those who do not adhere to Him, that they place themselves at a distance from God, and journey on to destruction through their unbelief of Him. He then continues: “If even the angel came to men, is he the first and only one who came, or did others come on former occasions?” And he thinks he can meet either of these dilemmas at great length, although there is not a single real Christian who asserts that Christ was the only being that visited the human race. For, as Celsus says, “If they should say the only one,” there are others who appeared to different individuals.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Urfehde

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Urfehde | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Urfehde, f., ‘solemn oath not to take vengeance on an enemy,’ from the equiv. MidHG. urvêhede (urvêhe), f.; see Fehde. —
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Urkunde

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Urkunde | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Urkunde, f., ‘deed, document, charter,’ from MidHG. urkunde (urkünde), n. and f., ‘testimony, proof, document,’ OHG. urchundî, f., ‘testimony’; allied to erkennen (hence lit. ‘recognition’). —
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Urlaub

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Urlaub | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Urlaub, m., ‘leave of absence, furlough,’ from MidHG. and OHG. úrloup (b), m. and n., ‘permission’; an abstract from erlauben, ‘to permit, MidHG. erlouben, OHG. irloubôn. —
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Urtel

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Urtel | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Urtel, Urteil, n., ‘judgment, sentence, decision,’ from MidHG. urteil, urteile, f. and n., ‘judicial decision’; allied to erteilen (lit. ‘that which is imparted’). Comp. Du. oordeel, AS. ordâl, ‘judgment’ (whence Fr. ordalie, ‘judgment of God,’ MidLat. ordalium).
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/V

* A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M - N - O - P - Q - R - S - T - U - V - W - Z
* Vater
* Veilchen
* Veitsbohne
* Veitstanz
* ver-
* verblüffen
* verbrämen
* verdammen
* verdauen
* verderben
* Verderben
* verdrießen
* Verdruß
* verdutzt
* vergällen
* verganten
* vergattern
* vergebens
* vergessen
* vergeuden
* Vergnügen
* verheeren
* verlangen
* verletzen
* verläumden
* verlieren
* Verlies
* verloben
* Verlust
* vermählen
* vermessen
* Vermögen
* vernichten
* Vernunft
* verplämpern
* verpönen
* verquicken
* verquisten
* verraten
* verrecken
* verrucht
* verrückt
* Vers
* verschieden
* verschlagen
* verschmitzt
* verschroben
* verschwenden
* versehren
* versiegen
* versöhnen
* Verstand
* verstümmeln
* verteidigen
* vertrackt
* vertragen
* vertuschen
* verwahrlost
* verwandt
* verwegen
* Verweis
* verwesen
* Verweser
* verwichen
* verwirren
* verwittern
* verzeihen
* Vesper
* Vettel
* Vetter
* Vieh
* viel
* Vielfraß
* vielleicht
* vier
* Vierteil
* Visier
* Vizdom
* Vließ
* Vogel
* Vogt
* Volk
* voll
* vollkommen
* von
* vor
* vorder
* vorhanden
* Vormund
* vorn
* vornehm
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Urahn

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Urahn | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Urahn, m., ‘great-grandfather,’ from MidHG. urane; see Ahn. —
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Urheber

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Urheber | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Urheber, m., ‘author, originator,’ a ModHG. derivative of MidHG. urhap (b), m., ‘beginning, cause, origin’ (allied to heben).
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Ursprung

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Ursprung | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Ursprung, m., ‘source, origin,’ from MidHG. úrsprunc, úrsprinc (g), OHG. úrspring, m. and n., ‘source’; allied to springen, (erspringen). —
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Urbar

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Urbar | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Urbar, n., ‘produce, landed property,’ from MidHG. urbor, urbar, f. and n., ‘copyhold, rent, income’; lit. perhaps ‘tax, produce, rent’ (comp. Goth. gabaúr, ‘tax’). Hence urbar, adj., ‘arable,’ lit. ‘bearing interest, productive’ (ModHG. only). —
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Ursache

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Ursache | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Ursache, f., ‘cause,’ from MidHG. ursache. —