c. 1200, beste, "one of the lower animals" (opposed to man), especially "a four-footed animal," also "a marvelous creature, a monster" (mermaids, werewolves, lamia, satyrs, the beast of the Apocalypse), "a brutish or stupid man," from Old French beste "animal, wild beast," figuratively "fool, idiot" (11c., Modern French bête), from Vulgar Latin *besta, from Latin bestia "beast, wild animal," which is of unknown origin.
The word was used in Middle English to translate Latin animal. It displaced Old English deor (see deer) as the generic word for "wild creature," only to be ousted 16c. by animal.
early 14c., "any sentient living creature" (including humans), from Latin animale "living being, being which breathes," noun use of neuter of animalis (adj.) "animate, living; of the air," from anima "breath, soul; a current of air" (from PIE root *ane- "to breathe;" for sense development, compare deer).
A rare word in English before c. 1600, and not in KJV (1611). Commonly only of non-human creatures. It drove out the older beast in common usage. Used derisively of brutish humans (in which the "animal," or non-rational, non-spiritual nature is ascendant) from 1580s.
The lie and deception is claiming the etymology of BEAST is BEing ASTute.
Old English beste, reduced by assimilation of -t- from earlier Old English betst "of the highest quality or standing, first, in the best manner." This originally was the superlative of bōt "remedy, reparation" (Middle English bote "advantage, help, profit"), a word now surviving in its simple form only in the expression to boot (see boot (n.2)). Its comparative, better, and superlative, best, have been transferred to good (and in some cases well).
Old English bōt is from Proto-Germanic root *bat-, with comparative *batizon and superlative *batistaz. The superlative form is the source also of Old Frisian, Old Saxon, Middle Dutch best, Old High German bezzist, German best, Old Norse beztr, Gothic batists. Also in Old English as an adverb, "in the most excellent manner."
The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!
[Burns, from "To a Mouse, on Turning Her Up in Her Nest With the Plough, November, 1785"]
From late Old English as "of greatest advantage, most suitable." Best-seller as short for "best-selling book" is from 1889, apparently originally in the publishing trade; best friend was in Chaucer (late 14c.). Best girl is attested by 1881, American English; best man is 1814, originally Scottish, replacing groomsman.
The Great Vowel Shift was a series of pronunciation changes in the vowels of the English language that took place primarily between 1400 and 1700[1] (the 15th century forming the transition period from Middle English to Early Modern English), beginning in southern England and having influenced effectively all dialects of English today. Through this extensive vowel shift, the pronunciation of all Middle English long vowels altered. Some consonant sounds also changed, specifically becoming silent; the term Great Vowel Shift is occasionally used to include these consonantal changes.[2][3]
The standardization of English spelling began in the 15th and 16th centuries; the Great Vowel Shift is the major reason English spellings now often deviate considerably from how they represent pronunciations.[4]
"keen in discernment and careful of one's self-interest," 1610s, from Latin astutus "crafty, wary, shrewd; sagacious, expert," from astus "cunning, cleverness, adroitness," which is of uncertain origin. The Romans considered it to be from Greek asty "town," borrowed into Latin and implying city sophistication (see asteism). Related: Astutely; astuteness.
An alternative form is astucious (1823), from French astucieux, from Latin astutia "astuteness." Also formerly astucity.
If you want to dissect what the etymology of BEAST means, you're going to need to go back to the word beste, and not introduce your personal interpretation that it comes from being BEing ASTute. The word changed from beste to beast during the time of what's called the Great Vowel Shift.
Only within sound can a word be shaped, hence sound/sanus - "entire; whole; all". Shaping words implies the articulation of natural sound aka spell-craft.
Sound implies need; word tempts want vs not want.
if you want to dissect what...means
Meaning implies a measure taken by ones mind while ignoring all given. Sharing meaning tempts one to ignore dissection (analysis) for combination (synthesis) aka natural for artificial.
Nature dissects want (life) within need (inception towards death)...artifice tempts want vs not want into combined conflict.
personal interpretation
Per (by) son (sound) al (all)
Inter (internal) pret (pass over) ation (action)
Personal interpretation implies the status quo of each being "by all sound" and "internally passing over action"...not about information shared with one another.
Words are utilized to hide how sound moves in-stru-ment (within structured mind). Sound moves through ones mind and cannot be held onto...words tempt ones mind to hold onto meaning, while ignoring sound.
The word changed
Sound implies change...only within natural change can a word be articulated. Holding onto the meaning of any word tempts one to ignore the change of all sound.
during the time
Time implies a measurement taken while ignoring all given. Notice how form (life) within flow (inception towards death) cannot perceive its beginning or end...yet suggested time can affix any date into ones mind if consented to.
Notice that during/durare/deru - "be firm, solid" implies being formed within a liquid flow.
Great Vowel Shift
VOW (to promise; pledge; wish; desire) EL (God)...it's God the greatest who pro (forwards) mise (to release) each shift (partition) within.
That's how sound works...releasing forwards each partitioned instrument. The suggested "great vowel shift" hides this within language/lingua (tongue) by forking the tongue within natural sound with the articulation of words.
That's also why there's an oral torah before the written torah.
Nature delineates (inception towards death) being (life)...artifice turns beings against each other mentally (logic) and physically (reason).
animals (opposed to man)
Animal aka all (light) animating each hue (color) of man (ray) within...that's how animal delineates human aka OP (in the direction of) POSE (to place)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/oppose
Only within animal (animation) can there be human (appearance)...using the labels animal and human upon one another distracts from animation while distorting appearance.
The lie and deception is claiming the etymology of BEAST is BEing ASTute.
One cannot be astute (discerning) by claiming; lying or deceiving...each of which implies a synthesis aka artificially putting together what nature sets apart for analysis.
I didn't claim that beast means being astute...I used implication (if > then) to show how only after being astute can one brand another discernible being as a beast.
One cannot make the discernment between man and beast without BEING ASTUTE (discerning) before.
The hidden agenda and deception is found in how you twist the topic through word etymology and what you imply from them. Middle English is the English that was spoken from about 1100 to 1500 AD. Asking what's in the middle of an engl/angle and pulling up the etymology of vertex and what you imply with that, did you grasp what was said? The Great Vowel Shift, you twist it into vow + El which is you making stuff up through your implications.
mid-14c., vouel, "vowel sound, a vowel letter," c. 1300, from Anglo-French vouel, vowel, variants of Old French voieul (Modern French voyelle), from Latin vocalis, in littera vocalis "vocal letter." This is from vox (genitive vocis) "voice" (from PIE root *wekw- "to speak").
One of the open, continuous sounds uttered in human speech, a tone-sound, as opposed, relatively, to a consonant. In prosody, the central or open element of a syllable. Related: Vowellage; vowellish; vowelly.
Vowel shift in reference to the pronunciation change between Middle and Modern English is attested from 1909. The English record-holder for most consecutive vowels in a word is queueing.
The etymology of vowel isn't vow + El. You're making stuff up through your implications.
So you agree with me that the etymology of beast isn't astute being?
You used etymology as a synthesis of etymo (actual) + logy (logic) which shaped circular conflicts within your mind (agree vs disagree + is vs isn't).
I analyzed etymo+logy in a linear sense (if > then), therefore without choosing a side within a conflict, which allows me to see that one has to be astute to be able to shape the word "beast".
Logos (word) > logic (circular thinking) > reason (turning against one another) tempts one to ignore foundation (sound) for surface (word).
you twist the topic through word etymology and what you imply from them
The twist is within your view of etymo (actual) + logy (logic) as a synthesis. Logic implies circular thinking, which contradicts the actual linear procession of nature and it's implication (if > then).
I take words apart to try to dissolve the circle (contradiction) within the minds of those who cannot think straight.
did you grasp what was said
Sound moves and cannot be grasped...few shaping artificial words within natural sound to tempt many to grasp; seize; take possession of implies spell-craft for spell-binding.
I resist the temptation of grasping, which allows me to see how what was said besmirches the surface of the sound foundation underneath.
The Great Vowel Shift, you twist it into vow + El
The implies theos (God) as in theism (belief in a god).
Stuffing implies synthesis (together); implicating implies analysis (apart)...nature sets each native apart from one another; few artificially stuff many together.
Perceivable inspiration moves through ones mind...suggested information stuffs ones mind if held onto.
Stuffing drags one down with burden; implicating lifts one up by unburdening stuff.
You're not avoiding circular conflict in your mind by following an if > then sequence. A linear progression in nature wraps back around itself in the shape of a spiral. Your attempt at taking words apart to try to dissolve a contradiction is an attempt at logical thinking. You often appeal to the etymology of words, and often link to the etymonline.com website to back up what you say. You're not consistent with your use and appeal to that website. You're creating your own construct of what a word means and end up in the same circularity trap you're trying to avoid. By avoiding taking a side and choosing not to take a side, you create another layer of agree vs disagree and is vs isn't. You're saying your etymology for beast is, and mine isn't. You ended up engaging in exactly what you're trying to avoid.
It's obvious you didn't grasp what was said, and you didn't grasp the phrase what was said either. I didn't utter any sound of those words to you. Did you read it out loud or something like that?
When I said The Great Vowel Shift, this is what I was referring to https://stephaniehuesler.com/2024/11/17/history-undusted-the-great-vowel-shift/. A time period in history where the words changed, as in their spelling. You can give me your opinion of if > then dissection of the etymology, but you've not presented anything worthwhile to interact with.
I didn't say stuffing, I said you're making stuff up through your implications. Instead of dealing with what I wrote, you twist what I said into stuffing and imply something that is far different than what stuff means in the context I said it. Instead of avoiding circularity and helping dissolve the contradiction in the minds of those who cannot think straight, you expose your shortcomings in reading comprehension.
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=beast
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=animal
The lie and deception is claiming the etymology of BEAST is BEing ASTute.
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=best
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Vowel_Shift
https://stephaniehuesler.com/2024/11/17/history-undusted-the-great-vowel-shift/
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=astute
If you want to dissect what the etymology of BEAST means, you're going to need to go back to the word beste, and not introduce your personal interpretation that it comes from being BEing ASTute. The word changed from beste to beast during the time of what's called the Great Vowel Shift.
Only within sound can a word be shaped, hence sound/sanus - "entire; whole; all". Shaping words implies the articulation of natural sound aka spell-craft.
Sound implies need; word tempts want vs not want.
Meaning implies a measure taken by ones mind while ignoring all given. Sharing meaning tempts one to ignore dissection (analysis) for combination (synthesis) aka natural for artificial.
Nature dissects want (life) within need (inception towards death)...artifice tempts want vs not want into combined conflict.
Personal interpretation implies the status quo of each being "by all sound" and "internally passing over action"...not about information shared with one another.
Words are utilized to hide how sound moves in-stru-ment (within structured mind). Sound moves through ones mind and cannot be held onto...words tempt ones mind to hold onto meaning, while ignoring sound.
Sound implies change...only within natural change can a word be articulated. Holding onto the meaning of any word tempts one to ignore the change of all sound.
Time implies a measurement taken while ignoring all given. Notice how form (life) within flow (inception towards death) cannot perceive its beginning or end...yet suggested time can affix any date into ones mind if consented to.
Notice that during/durare/deru - "be firm, solid" implies being formed within a liquid flow.
VOW (to promise; pledge; wish; desire) EL (God)...it's God the greatest who pro (forwards) mise (to release) each shift (partition) within.
That's how sound works...releasing forwards each partitioned instrument. The suggested "great vowel shift" hides this within language/lingua (tongue) by forking the tongue within natural sound with the articulation of words.
That's also why there's an oral torah before the written torah.
What's the middle of an engl/angle? A vertex from vertere/wer - "to turn"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/vertex
Nature delineates (inception towards death) being (life)...artifice turns beings against each other mentally (logic) and physically (reason).
Animal aka all (light) animating each hue (color) of man (ray) within...that's how animal delineates human aka OP (in the direction of) POSE (to place)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/oppose
Only within animal (animation) can there be human (appearance)...using the labels animal and human upon one another distracts from animation while distorting appearance.
One cannot be astute (discerning) by claiming; lying or deceiving...each of which implies a synthesis aka artificially putting together what nature sets apart for analysis.
I didn't claim that beast means being astute...I used implication (if > then) to show how only after being astute can one brand another discernible being as a beast.
One cannot make the discernment between man and beast without BEING ASTUTE (discerning) before.
The hidden agenda and deception is found in how you twist the topic through word etymology and what you imply from them. Middle English is the English that was spoken from about 1100 to 1500 AD. Asking what's in the middle of an engl/angle and pulling up the etymology of vertex and what you imply with that, did you grasp what was said? The Great Vowel Shift, you twist it into vow + El which is you making stuff up through your implications.
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=vowel
The etymology of vowel isn't vow + El. You're making stuff up through your implications.
So you agree with me that the etymology of beast isn't astute being?
You used etymology as a synthesis of etymo (actual) + logy (logic) which shaped circular conflicts within your mind (agree vs disagree + is vs isn't).
I analyzed etymo+logy in a linear sense (if > then), therefore without choosing a side within a conflict, which allows me to see that one has to be astute to be able to shape the word "beast".
Logos (word) > logic (circular thinking) > reason (turning against one another) tempts one to ignore foundation (sound) for surface (word).
Notice also logos/leg - "to collect; gather"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/*leg-#etymonline_v_52572 Sound moves and cannot be gathered...gathering words represents a distortion within sound.
The twist is within your view of etymo (actual) + logy (logic) as a synthesis. Logic implies circular thinking, which contradicts the actual linear procession of nature and it's implication (if > then).
I take words apart to try to dissolve the circle (contradiction) within the minds of those who cannot think straight.
Sound moves and cannot be grasped...few shaping artificial words within natural sound to tempt many to grasp; seize; take possession of implies spell-craft for spell-binding.
I resist the temptation of grasping, which allows me to see how what was said besmirches the surface of the sound foundation underneath.
Vowel/wekw - "to speak"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/vowel implies ones articulation within "the great vowel shift" of nature.
Stuffing implies synthesis (together); implicating implies analysis (apart)...nature sets each native apart from one another; few artificially stuff many together.
Perceivable inspiration moves through ones mind...suggested information stuffs ones mind if held onto.
Stuffing drags one down with burden; implicating lifts one up by unburdening stuff.
You're not avoiding circular conflict in your mind by following an if > then sequence. A linear progression in nature wraps back around itself in the shape of a spiral. Your attempt at taking words apart to try to dissolve a contradiction is an attempt at logical thinking. You often appeal to the etymology of words, and often link to the etymonline.com website to back up what you say. You're not consistent with your use and appeal to that website. You're creating your own construct of what a word means and end up in the same circularity trap you're trying to avoid. By avoiding taking a side and choosing not to take a side, you create another layer of agree vs disagree and is vs isn't. You're saying your etymology for beast is, and mine isn't. You ended up engaging in exactly what you're trying to avoid.
It's obvious you didn't grasp what was said, and you didn't grasp the phrase what was said either. I didn't utter any sound of those words to you. Did you read it out loud or something like that?
When I said The Great Vowel Shift, this is what I was referring to https://stephaniehuesler.com/2024/11/17/history-undusted-the-great-vowel-shift/. A time period in history where the words changed, as in their spelling. You can give me your opinion of if > then dissection of the etymology, but you've not presented anything worthwhile to interact with.
I didn't say stuffing, I said you're making stuff up through your implications. Instead of dealing with what I wrote, you twist what I said into stuffing and imply something that is far different than what stuff means in the context I said it. Instead of avoiding circularity and helping dissolve the contradiction in the minds of those who cannot think straight, you expose your shortcomings in reading comprehension.