You sound like a creationist, Michael. You are simply making things up. At this point if I were to say the sky was blue you would most likely try to argue that it is a cheese sandwich.
TK: FYI, Glaube is cognate with the English word "be-lief," which comes from the OE geleafa.
Unless you are talking to Beowulf, that is not very helpful.
ge-laube (glaube) would be a past participle lieben, laubte, gelaubt ... if such were more than theoretical. The English is lief as in "make willing."
When you be-lief (not ge-lief) you are "willed to" or "willed for" or "willed in." The prefix "be" substitutes for an undefined directive adjective. "Belong" means to long for; "behold" means hold by or hold to and bedeck means to deck with. "Deck the halls with boughs of holly" scans better than "boughs of holly bedeck the halls."
None of which is useful for Kant. It might help with Nietzsche. He loved etymologies. Kant was mostly a guy to invite over to dinner before attempting to cross the seven bridges of Koenigsberg.
... maybe we should call this "Who the Heck Could Possibly Need Etymology?"
There is so much not even wrong here I don't know where to begin. Here is just some of it.
According to Calvert Watkins' American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots and easily verified English and German grammar:
• Belief does indeed come from an earlier form with a ge- prefix, although you ignorantly deny it. (In English that prefix weakens or disappears. The words alike and enough come from OE gelic and genog which are cognate with German gleich and genug.)
• Obviously you don't know that the prefix ge- was not limited to past particples prior to the modern German you learned in high school.
• The prefix ge- is cognate with Latin com-, the prefix be- with the Latin ambi.
• The addition of the be- prefix as an intensifier, just like ge- is a typical English development, regardless of your ignorance of the fact.
• The prefix be- means does not mean "for." It is cognate with the English preposition by.
• You have simply made up the etymologies "willed to" et cetera.
• belong derives from gelang, "along with," not, as you ludicrously invent, "to long for."
• Neither the word belief nor Glaube (nor enough, nor alike, etc.,) is or derives from a past participle as you invent.
• The word belief derives from the verb *galaubo, not the adjective lief which comes from the separate word *leubaz. You are, in part, misled by a coincidence of modern spelling, in part by emotion.
• The actual forms of lieben, "to love," are liebe, liebte, geliebt.
• The actualforms of glauben, "to believe," are glaube, glaubte, geglaubt.
•The "words" laubte and glaubte are your inventions.
• While the roots of love and belief (and to give "leave") are distantly related at the Proto-Indo-European, they were already entirely separate in Proto-Germanic. The verbs to believe and glauben come from the Proto-Germanic O-grade *loubh >*galaubo. The verbs to love and lieben come from roots with other stem vowels.
• This: When you be-lief (not ge-lief) you are "willed to" or "willed for" or "willed in." is plain nonsense. The verb form was never be-lief. The last consonant in the verb believe developed from a Germanic intervocal -b- to an English intervocal -v- which was written as an -f- in Old English. The noun form with a final voiceless -f (like off) developed separately. None of these forms developed from the adjective lief, "gladly," as in the archaic "I would as lief." And as mention the "willed-to" etymology is your own not even plausible invention.
Your rationalism here is shocking. Just as with your made up accusations against Beck, you have started with you hatred as the given, and made up the facts to suit.
(Edited by Ted Keer on 1/23, 3:05pm)