{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03176704169424222, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.538461538461538, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Poetic Meanings in the Old English Poetic Vocabulary

The degree to which the study of the Old English poetic vocabulary has been neglected can be measured by a misconception that appears in two of the few discussions of this vocabulary found in the critical literature. Both works present ceol as an example of a synedochic poetic word, claiming that this word, to which they attribute the literal meaning ‘keel’, is used pars pro toto to mean ‘ship’. However, neither ceol nor its early Germanic cognates, OS and OHG kiol, ON kjóll, ever had the meaning ‘keel’. Modern English ‘keel’ descends from ON kjølr, which was distinct from ON kjóll. Ceol, like its cognates, meant only ‘ship’, and appeared in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and glosses as well as poetry. The word was apparently common enough in the early sixth century for it to be used by Gildas, in his account of the Saxon invasions, in the form cyul. Thus ceol was neither synecdochic nor poetic. The equation of ceol with ‘keel’ goes back at least as far as the BosworthToller dictionary, where ceol is defined as ‘the keel of a ship, a ship’. This inviting equation has been perpetuated, while the instruction in Toller’s Supplement that ‘the keel of a ship’ be deleted from the definition has been, for the most part, ignored. This perpetuation may be due in part to an unconscious tendency on our part to amplify those elements in the Old English poetic language that resemble the language of modern poetry. Thus words such as lind, æsc and bord,