Some who have studied it think there might have been a second preposition under surviving in the language, from a Germanic form of the ancient reconstructed Proto-Indo-European word (*enter 'between, among') that also became Greek enter and Latin inter. One guess about the compound is that the notion is less 'standing under' and more 'standing in the midst of' (truth, facts, meaning, etc.). For understand, in Middle English, we also get understont, understounde, unþurstonde, onderstonde, hunderstonde, oundyrston, wonderstande, urdenstonden, and others. In general, the more different ways Middle English scribes spelled a word, the less sure they were of its derivation.

My guess is that the image was confusing already by Middle English. Likewise the sense has not shifted since King Alfred's day: 'to comprehend, grasp the idea of, receive from a word or words or from a sign the idea it is intended to convey to view in a certain way.'īut what does 'standing beneath' have to do with any of that? If that is what we are thought to do. In form it is a compound of under + stand (v.), and it has been so since Old English.

Understand is so plainly odd that even people who don't think about word histories notice it. SUPERSTITIOUS UNDERSTANDING Etymology's joke on us is that our very words that mean 'grasp an idea of, mentally fit together parts of reality' - are themselves obscure or incomprehensible to us.

Spelling of actionally