The other day my wife asked me about the history of brook in phrases like “brook no opposition.” What an excellent question, said I, and repaired to the OED, where I found the following story. The Old English strong verb brúcan (past tense bréac, brucon, past participle ȝebrocen) is historically the same as the German brauchen (which, however, has become a weak verb) and has the same meaning: ‘to make use of, have the enjoyment of, enjoy’ (as does their Latin cognate frui). How do we get from there to ‘put up with’? Easy as pie: a specialized usage was the OED’s sense 2, “To make use of (food); in later usage, to digest, retain, or bear on the stomach.” And from citations like 1540 Thomas Raynalde, Roesslin’s Byrth of mankynde II. ix. 142 “If she refuse or cannot brooke meat” and 1598 William Phillip, Iohn Huighen van Linschoten his discours of voyages into ye Easte and West Indies in Arber’s ‘Garner,’ III. 26 “So fat that men can hardly brook them,” we can clearly see the development to the modern sense (for which the first OED cite is 1530 Palsgrave, Lesclarcissement de la langue françoyse 471/2 “He can nat brooke me of all men”).
And for the musty word bartizan “A battlemented parapet at the top of a castle or church,” the OED offers this censorious etymology:
[In no dictionary before 1800; not in Todd 1818, nor Craig 1847. Apparently first used by Sir Walter Scott, and due to a misconception of a 17th c. illiterate Sc. spelling, bertisene, for bertising, i.e. bretising, BRATTICING, f. bretasce (BRATTICE), a. OF. bretesche, ‘battlemented parapet, originally of wood and temporary.’ Bartizan is thus merely a spurious ‘modern antique,’ which had no existence in the times to which it is attributed.]