英语词源字典 - 在线词源网站

argue: argue: [14] English acquired argue and its various meanings via rather complex paths, but its ultimate origin is straightforward: the Latin verb arguere derived from a prehistoric Indo- European base *arg- ‘be white, bright, or clear’ (source also of Latin argentum ‘silver’, and thus of French argent ‘money’); it therefore meant primarily ‘make clear’, but this subsequently developed into ‘assert, prove’.

A frequentative form (that is, one denoting repeated action) evolved, argutāre; this signified ‘make repeated assertions or accusations’. This passed into medieval French as arguer ‘accuse, blame’, and also ‘bring forward reasons for an assertion’, and thence into English. The meaning ‘accuse’ died out in English in the late 17th century, leaving ‘reasoning, discussing’ as the main sense of argue.

Meanwhile, original Latin arguere had made its presence felt in establishing the sense ‘prove’ in English, now somewhat weakened to ‘imply, indicate’ (as in ‘Their lack of involvement argues indifference’). The sense ‘quarrel’ seems to have developed from ‘discuss’ in the 17th century.
condition: condition: [14] Latin condīcere originally meant literally ‘talk together’ – it was a compound verb formed from the prefix com- ‘together’ and dicere ‘talk’ (whose base dic- forms the basis of a wide range of English words from abdicate to vindicate, including diction and dictionary). Gradually the idea of ‘talking together, discussing’ passed to ‘agreeing’, and the derived Latin noun conditiō originally meant ‘agreement’. From this came ‘stipulation, provision’, and hence ‘situation, mode of being’, all of them senses which passed via Old French condicion into English condition.
=> abdicate, diction, dictionary, predict, vindicate
ridge: ridge: [OE] Old English hrycg denoted ‘the back’, as its modern Germanic relatives – German rücken, Dutch rug, Swedish rygg, and Danish ryg – still do. But a gradual semantic focussing on the ‘backbone’ led by the 14th century to the emergence of ‘long narrow raised area’, today’s main meaning. It goes back to a prehistoric Germanic *khrugjaz, which may have been related to Sanskrit krunc- ‘be crooked’ – in which case the notion underlying the word would be of a ‘bent back’.
concuss (v.): 1590s, "to shake violently," from Latin concuss-, past participle stem of concutere "to dash together, shake violently" (see concussion). Meaning "to give a concussion to the brain" is from 1680s. Related: Concussed; concussing; concussive.
cuss (v.): "to say bad words," 1815, alteration of curse (v.). Related: Cussed; cussing. To cuss out attested by 1881.
discuss (v.): mid-14c., "to examine, investigate," from Latin discuss-, past participle stem of discutere "to dash to pieces, agitate," in Late Latin and Vulgar Latin also "to discuss, investigate" (see discussion). Meaning "examine by argument, debate" is from mid-15c. Related: Discussed; discussing.
focus (v.): 1775 in optics, "bring into focus" (transitive); 1807 in the figurative sense, from focus (n.). Intransitive use by 1864, originally in photography. Related: Focused; focusing; less commonly focussed; focussing.
nuanced (adj.): 1896, past participle adjective from verb nuance (q.v.).
The new co-operative history of English literature which the University of Cambridge is now publishing prints "genre" without italics. And it even permits one contributor--and a contributor who is discussing Shakespeare!--to say that something is delicately "nuanced." Is there now an English verb "to nuance"? It is terrible to think of the bad language the scholars of the venerable English university might have used if "nuanced" had been first discovered in the text of an American author. [Scribner's Magazine," January 1911]
treat (n.): late 14c., "action of discussing terms," from treat (v.). Sense of "a treating with food and drink, an entertainment given as a compliment or expression of regard" (1650s) was extended by 1770 to "anything that affords much pleasure."