Came across the word 'LESE' which so many dictionaries describe as 'to lose'
Is this a new word , or did I just not come across it before?
um... you've never come across
lese majesty?
sorry to say - but no....
anyway can you help further and demonstrate a use...?
Or a bit more authentically "lèse majesté". A crime against the sovreign, offense against a ruler's dignity, treason.
Stupid wild-ass guess here: could lese be related to the suffix -less?
For lese the OED has links to leash, lease, leach (obs. thin strips of meat) and the verb leese.
From the definition of the obsolete verb leese:
[A Com. Teut. strong vb.: OE. -léosan, only in compounds, beléosan, forléosan (-léas, -luron, -loren) corresponds to OFris. ur-liasa, OS. far-liosan (Du. ver-liezen), OHG. vir-liosan (MHG. verliesen, mod.G. verlieren, influenced by the pa. tense and pa. pple.), Goth. fra-liusan; other derivatives of the root (*leus-: laus-: los-) are leasing n., -less, loose a. and v., lose v., loss.
The root *leus- is usually regarded as an extension of the *leu-, *lu- in Gr. kÊ-eim, L. so-lv-Sre to loosen.]
1. trans. = lose, in its various senses; to part with or be parted from by misadventure, through change in conditions, etc.; to be deprived of; to cease to possess; to fail to preserve, or maintain; to fail to gain or secure; to fail to profit by, to spend (time) unprofitably; to use (labour) to no advantage. Also refl. a. In present stem.
Looks like lese (in the original post of this thread) may not tie into lese majeste.
The former, as Rouspeteur notes, traces back to teutonic tongues (as does the suffix -less), referring to "lost". But lese majeste comes from latin laesa or laesae, "injured", via middle french.
tsuwm, am I missing something here?
