Posted by TheFallen on March 10, 2002
I suspect that there are two entirely different word roots, diametrically opposed in meaning, that have given rise to the somewhat archaic English verb "to cleave". It can mean to cling or adhere - "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;" Mark 10:7 and numerous other Biblical and religious examples. This form of the verb seems to have an entirely regular declension - "I cleave, I have cleaved, I cleaved" and so on.
Of course it can mean to split apart, usually with some vehemence - "to cleave in two", "cleft asunder", "cloven", "a cleft in the rockface" and so on. This verb, as is so common with verbs of motion, has an entirely irregular declension - "I cleave, I have cloven, I cleft" and so on.
The word roots must therefore be very different, but looking at the word formation, and particularly the "ea" vowel string, I suspect that neither is Latin-based - they both just smell Germanic to me. Can anyone confirm this, and when both verbs came into general use? Was one later to the party than the other one? It's an unusual occurrence for such a thing to happen and one can easily imagine major misunderstandings that might have occurred - if there were sitcom writers in the days of yore, they'd have had a field day with this, I am sure.