Old English hwilc (West Saxon) "which," short for hwi-lic "of what form," from Proto-Germanic *khwilikaz (cf. Old Saxon hwilik , Old Norse hvelikr , Swedish vilken , Old Frisian hwelik , Middle Dutch wilk , Dutch welk , Old High German hwelich , German welch , Gothic hvileiks "which"), from *khwi- "who" (see who ) + *likan "body, form" (cf. Old English lic "body;" see like (adj.)). In Middle English used as a relative pronoun where Modern English would use who , as still in the Lord's Prayer. Old English also had parallel forms hwelc and hwylc , which disappeared 15c.
Amen. I agree that it’s very important to allow little girls to know they’re beautiful, smart, talented, their prescence in a room is inviting and makes those around her smile. I too, was not encouraged as a little girl by my Mother or told I was beautiful or important or smart. I too, was dismissed and dressed in clothes that were the first mismatched outfit and quickest pair of clothes to hurry up and get me ready.
We are knitted in our Mothers Woumb by God Almighty and he calls us the “Apple of HIS eyes!” How much more beautiful do you get than that. Beauty, is not only outside but inside too! I feel that we can balance the baby doll dress up love with reading a good childrens book, or even the children’s Bible to our little girls! Anything else is just judgmental to say that we the people are wrong for having spiritual gifts to show “LOVE” by giving compliments to our baby girls and our friends and families baby girls. We are showing actions & words of LOVE! And “Love” covers a multitude of sins. Food for thought…
There is a marvellous illustration of this arms-race problem in the work of two psychology professors, Deborah Gruenfeld and Robert Wyer, Jr. They gave people statements that were said to be newspaper headlines, and asked them to rate their plausibility, on a scale of zero to ten. Since the headlines basically stated the obvious–for example, “black democrats supported jesse jackson for president in 1988”–the scores were all quite high. The readers were then given a series of statements that contradicted the headlines. Not surprisingly, the belief scores went down significantly. Then another group of people was asked to read a series of statements that supported the headlines–statements like “Black Democrats presently support Jesse Jackson for President.” This time, the belief scores still dropped. Telling people that what they think is true actually is true, in other words, has almost the same effect as telling them that what they think is true isn’t true. Gruenfeld and Wyer call this a “boomerang effect,” and it suggests that people are natural skeptics. How we respond to a media proposition has at least as much to do with its pragmatic meaning (why we think the statement is being made) as with its semantic meaning (what is literally being said). And when the pragmatic meaning is unclear–why, for example, would someone tell us over and over that Jesse Jackson has the support of black Democrats–we start to get suspicious. This is the dilemma of spin. When Rahm Emanuel says “bombshell,” we focus not on the actual bombshell but on why he used the word “bombshell.”