Etymology Dictionary

PREFACE
to the 1881 edition

THE present work was undertaken with the intention of furnishing students with materials for a more scientific study of English etymology than is commonly to be found in previous works upon the subject. It is not intended to be always authoritative, nor are the conclusions arrived at to be accepted as final. It is rather intended as a guide to future writers, shewing them in some cases what ought certainly to be accepted, and in other cases, it may be, what to avoid. The idea of it arose out of my own wants. I could find no single book containing the facts about a given word which it most concerns a student to know, whilst, at the same time, there exist numerous books containing information too important to be omitted. Thus Richardson's Dictionary is an admirable store-house of quotations illustrating such words as are of no great antiquity in the language, and his selected examples are the more valuable from the fact that he in general adds the exact reference¹. Todd's Johnson likewise contains numerous well-chosen quotations, but perhaps no greater mistake was ever made than that of citing from authors like 'Dryden' or 'Addison' at large, without the slightest hint as to the whereabouts of the context. But in both of these works the etymology is, commonly, of the poorest description; and it would probably be difficult to find a worse philologist than Richardson, who adopted many suggestions from Horne Tooke without enquiry, and was capable of saying that hod is 'perhaps hoved, hov'd, hod, past part. of heafan, to heave.' It is easily ascertained that the A.S. for heave is hebban, and that, being a strong verb, its past participle did not originally end in -ed.

It would be tedious to mention the numerous other books which help to throw such light on the history of words as is necessary for the right investigation of their etymology. The great defect of most of them is that they do not carry back that history far enough, and are very weak in the highly important Middle-English period. But the publications of the Cambden Society, of the Early English Text Society, and of many other printing clubs, have lately materially advanced our knowledge, and have rendered possible such excellent books of reference as are exemplified in Stratmann's Old English Dictionary and in the still more admirable but (as yet) incomplete 'Wörterbuch' by Eduard Mätzner. In particular, the study of phonetics, as applied to Early English pronunciation by Mr. Ellis and Mr. Sweet, and carefully carried out by nearly all students of Early English in Germany, has almost revolutionised the study of etymology as hitherto pursued in England. We can no longer consent to disregard vowel-sounds as if they formed no essential part of the word, which seems to have been the old doctrine; indeed, the idea is by no means yet discarded even by those who ought to know better.

On the other hand, we have, in Eduard Müller's Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Englischen Sprache², an excellent collection of etymologies and cognate words, but without any illustrations of the use or history of words, or any indication of the period when they first came into use. We have also Webster's Dictionary, with the etymologies as revised by Dr. Mahn, a very useful and comprehensive volume; but the plan of the work does not allow of much explanation of a purely philological character.

¹ I have verified a large number of these. Where I could not conveniently do so, I have added '(R.)' in parenthesis at the end of the reference. I found, to my surprise, that the references to Chaucer are often utterly wrong, the numbers being frequently misprinted.
² It is surprising that this book is not better known. If the writers of some of the current 'Etymological' Dictionaries had taken E. Müller for their guide, they might have doubled their accuracy and halved their labour.

It is many years since a new and comprehensive dictionary was first planned by the Philological Society, and we have now good hope that, under the able editorship of Dr. Murray, some portion of this great work may ere long see the light. For the illustration of the history of words, this will be all-important, and the etymologies will, I believe, be briefly but sufficiently indicated. It was chiefly with the hope of assisting in this national work, that, many years ago, I began collecting materials and making notes upon points relating to etymology. The result of such work, in a modified form, and with very large additions, is here offered to the reader. My object has been to clear the way for the improvement of the etymologies by a previous discussion of all the more important words, executed on a plan so far differing from that which will be adopted by Dr. Murray as not to interfere with his labours, but rather, as far as possible, to assist them. It will, accordingly, be found that I have studied brevity by refraining from any detailed account of the changes of meaning of words, except where absolutely necessary for purely etymological purposes. The numerous very curious and highly interesting examples of words which, especially in later times, took up new meanings will not, in general, be found here; and the definitions, and even suggestions given in a very brief and bald manner, only the more usual senses being indicated. On the other hand, I have sometimes permitted myself to indulge in comments, discussions, and even suggestions and speculations, which would be out of place in a dictionary of the usual character. Some of these, where the results are right, will, I hope, save much future discussion and investigation; whilst others, where the results prove to be wrong, can be avoided and rejected. In one respect I have attempted considerably more than is usually done by the writers of works upon English etymology. I have endeavoured, where possible, to trace back words to their Aryan roots, by availing myself of the latest works upon comparative philology. In doing this, I have especially endeavoured to link one word with another, and the reader will find a perfect network of cross-references enabling him to collect all the forms of any given word of which various forms exist; so that many of the principal words in the Aryan languages can be thus traced. Instead of considering English as an isolated language, as is sometimes actually done, I endeavour, in every case, to exhibit its relation to cognate tongues; and as, by this process, considerable light is thrown upon English by Latin and Greek, so also, at the same time, considerable light is thrown upon Latin and Greek by Anglo-Saxon and Icelandic. Thus, whilst under the word bite will be found a mention of the cognate Latin findere, conversely, under the word fissure, is given a cross-reference to bite. In both cases, reference is also made to the root BHID; and, by referring to this root (no. 240, on p. 738), some further account of it will be found, with further examples of allied words. It is only by thus comparing all the Aryan languages together, and by considering them as one harmonious whole, that we can get a clear conception of the original forms; a conception which must precede all theory as to how those forms came to be invented¹. Another great advantage of the comparative method is that, though the present work is nominally one on English etymology, it is equally explicit, as far as it has occasion to deal with them, with regard to the related words in other languages; and may be taken as a guide to the etymology of many of the leading words in Latin and Greek, and to all the more important words in the various Scandinavian and Teutonic tongues.

¹ I refrain from discussing theories of languages in this work, contenting myself with providing materials for aiding in such discussion.

I have chiefly been guided throughout by the results of my own experience. Much use of many dictionaries has shewn me the exact points where an enquirer is often baffled, and I have especially addressed myself to the task of solving difficulties and passing beyond obstacles. Not inconsiderable has been the trouble of verifying references. A few examples will put this in a clear light.

Richardson has numerous references (to take a single case) to the Romaunt of the Rose. He probably used some edition in which the lines are not numbered; at any rate, he never gives an exact reference to it. The few references to it in Tyrwhitt's Glossary and in Stratmann do not help us very greatly. To find a particular word in this poem of 7700 lines is often troublesome; but, in every case where I wanted the quotation, I have found and noted it. I can recall several half-hours spent in this particular work.

Another not very hopeful book in which to find one's place, is the Faerie Queene. Reference to this are usually given to the book and canto, and of these one or other is (in Richardson) occasionally incorrect; in every case, I have added the number of the stanza.

One very remarkable fact about Richardson's dictionary is that, in many cases, references are given only to obscure and late authors, when all the while the word occurs in Shakespeare. By keeping Dr. Schmidt's comprehensive Shakespeare Lexicon¹ always open before me, this fault has been easily remedied.

To pass on to matters more purely etymological. I have constantly been troubled with the vagueness and inaccuracy of words quoted, in various books, as specimens of Old English or foreign languages. The spelling of 'Anglo-Saxon' is some books is often simply outrageous. Accents are put in or left out at pleasure; impossible combinations of letters are given; the number of syllables is disregarded; and grammatical terminations have to take their chance. Words taken from Ettmüller are spelt with ä and æ; words taken from Bosworth are spelt with æ and æ², without any hint that the ä and æ of the former answer to æ and ǽ in the latter. I do not wish to give examples of these things; they are so abundant that they may easily be found by the curious. In many cases, writers of 'etymological' dictionaries do not trouble to learn even the alphabets of the languages cited from, or the most elementary grammatical facts. I have met with supposed Welsh words spelt with a υ, with Swedish words spelt with æ, with Danish infinitives ending in -a³, with Icelandic infinitives in -an, and so on; the only languages correctly spelt being Latin and Greek, and commonly French and German. It is clearly assumed, and probably with safety, that most readers will not detect mis-spellings beyond this limited range.

But this was not a matter which troubled me long. At a very early stage of my studies, I perceived clearly enough, that the spelling given by some authorities is not necessarily to be taken as the true one; and it was then easy to make allowances for possible errors, and to refer to some book with reasonable spellings, such as E. Müller, or Mahn's Webster, or Wedgwood. A little research revealed far more curious pieces of information than the citing of words in impossible or mistaken spellings. Statements abound which it is difficult to account for except on the supposition that it must once have been usual to manufacture words for the express purpose of deriving others from them. To take an example, I open Todd's Johnson at random, and find that under bolster is cited 'Gothic bolster, a heap of hay.' Now the fragments of Gothic that have reached us are very precious but very insufficient, and they certainly contain no such word as bolster. Neither is bolster a Gothic spelling. Holster is represented in Gothic by hulistr, so that bolster might, possibly, be bulistr. In any case, as the word certainly does not occur, it can only be a pure invention, due to some blunder; the explanation 'a heap of hay' is a happy and graphic touch, regarded in the light of a fiction, but is out of place in a work of reference.

¹ To save time, I have seldom verified Dr. Schmidt's references, believing them to be, in general, correct. I have seldom so trusted any other book.
² Sic; printers often make æ do duty for ǽ. I suspect that ǽ is seldom provided for.
³ Todd's Johnson, s.v. Boll, has 'Su. Goth. bulna, Dan. bulner.' Here bulna is the Swedish infinitive, whilst bulner is the first person of the present tense. Similar jumbles abound.

A mistake of this nature would not greatly matter if such instances were rare; but the extraordinary part of the matter is that they are extremely common, owing probably to the trust reposed by former writers in such etymologists as Skinner and Junius, men who did good work in their day, but whose statements require careful verification in this nineteenth century. What Skinner was capable of, I have shewn in my introduction to the reprint of Ray's Glossary published for the English Dialect Society. It is sufficient to say that the net result is this; that words cited in etymological dictionaries (with very few exceptions) cannot be accepted without verification. Not only do we find puzzling misspellings, but we find actual fictions; words are said to be 'Anglo-Saxon' that are not to be found in the existing texts; 'Gothic' words are constructed for the mere purpose of 'etymology;' Icelandic words have meanings assigned to them which are incredible or misleading; and so on of the rest.

Another source of trouble is that, when real words are cited, they are wrongly explained. Thus, in Todd's Johnson, we find a derivation of bond  from A.S. 'bond, bound.' Now bond  is not strictly Anglo-Saxon, but an Early English form, signifying 'a band,' and is not a past participle at all; the A.S. for 'bound' being gebunden. The error is easily traced; Dr. Bosworth cites 'bond, bound, ligatus' from Somner's Dictionary, whence it was also copied into Lye's Dictionary in the form: 'bond, ligatus, obligatus, bound.' Where Somner found it, is a mystery indeed, as it is absurd on the face of it. We should take a man to be a very poor German scholar who imagined that band, in German, is a past participle; but when the same mistake is made by Somner, we find that it is copied by Lye, copied by Bosworth (who, however, marks it as Somner's), copied into Todd's Johnson, amplified by Richardson into the misleading statement that 'bond  is the past tense¹ and past participle of the verb to bind,' and has doubtless been copied by numerous other writers who have wished to come at their etymologies with the least trouble to themselves. It is precisely this continual reproduction of errors which so disgraces many English works, and renders investigation so difficult.

But when I had grasped the facts that spellings are often false, that words can be invented, and that explanations are often wrong, I found that worse remained behind. The science of philology is comparatively modern, so that our earlier writers had no means of ascertaining principles that are now well established, and, instead of proceeding by rule, had to go blindly by guesswork, thus sowing crops of errors which have sprung up and multiplied till it requires very careful investigation to enable a modern writer to avoid all the pitfalls prepared for him by the false suggestions which he meets with at every turn. Many derivations that have been long current and are even generally accepted will not be found in this volume, for the plain reason that I have found them to be false; I think I may at any rate believe myself to be profoundly versed in most of the old fables of this character, and I shall only say, briefly, that the reader need not assume me to be ignorant of them because I do not mention them. The most extraordinary fact about comparative philology is that, whilst its principles are well understood by numerous students in Germany and America, they are far from being well-known in England, so that it is easy to meet even with classical scholars who have no notion what 'Grimm's law' really means, and who are entirely at a loss to understand why the English care has no connection with the Latin cura, nor the English whole with the Greek ὅλος, nor the French charité with the Greek χάρις. Yet for the understanding of these things nothing more is needed than a knowledge of the relative values of the letters of the English, Latin, and Greek alphabets. A knowledge of these alphabets is strangely neglected at our public schools; whereas a few hours carefully devoted to each would save scholars from innumerable blunders, and a boy of sixteen who understood them would be far more than a match, in matters of etymology, for a man of fifty who did not. In particular, some knowledge of the vowel-sounds is essential. Modern philology will, in future, turn more and  more upon phonetics; and the truth now confined to a very few will at last become general, that the vowel is commonly the very life, the most essential part of the word, and that, just as pre-scientific etymologists frequently went wrong because they considered the consonants as being of small consequence and the vowels of none at all, the scientific student of the present day may hope to go right, if he considers the consonants as being of great consequence and the vowels as all-important.

¹ Bond is a form of the past tense in Middle English, and indeed the sb. bond is itself derived from the A.S. pt. t. band; but bond is certainly not 'the past participle.'

The foregoing remarks are, I think, sufficient to shew my reasons for undertaking the work, and the nature of some of the difficulties which I have endeavoured to encounter or remove. I now proceed to state explicitly what the reader may expect to find.

Each article begins with a word, the etymology of which is to be sought. When there are one or more words with the same spelling, a number is added, for the sake of distinction in the case of future reference. This is a great convenience when such words are cited in the 'List of Aryan Roots' and in the various indexes at the end of the volume, besides saving trouble in making cross-references.

After the word comes a brief definition, merely as a mark whereby to identify the word.

Next follows an exact statement of the actual (or probable) language whence the word is taken, with an account of the channel or channels through which it reached us. Thus the word 'Canopy' is marked '(F.,--Ital.,--L.,--Gk.),' to be read as 'French, from Italian, from Latin, from Greek;' that is to say, the word is ultimately Greek, whence it was borrowed, first by Latin, secondly by Italian (from the Latin), thirdly by French (from the Italian), and lastly by English (from French). The endeavour to distinguish the exact history of each word in this manner conduces greatly to care and attention, and does much to render the etymology correct. I am not aware that any attempt of the kind has previously been made, except very partially; the usual method, of offering a heap of more or less related words in one confused jumble, is much to be depreciated, and is often misleading¹.

After the exact statement of the source, follow a few quotations. These are intended to indicate the period at which the word was borrowed, or else the usual Middle-English forms. When the word is not a very old one, I have given one or two of the earliest quotations which I have been able to find, though I have here preferred quotations from well-known authors to somewhat earlier ones from more obscure writers. These quotations are intended to exemplify the history of the form of the word, and are frequently of great chronological utility; though it is commonly sufficient to indicate the period of the word's first use within half a century. By way of example, I may observe that canon is not derived from F. canon, but appears in King Ælfred, and was taken immediately from the Latin. I give the reference under Canon, to Ælfred's translation of Beda, b. iv. c. 24, adding 'Bosworth' at the end. This means that I took the reference from Bosworth's Dictionary, and had not, at the moment, the means of verifying the quotation (I now find it is quite correct, occurring on p. 598 of Smith's edition, at l. 13). When no indication of the authority for the quotation is given, it commonly means that I have verified it myself; except in the case of Shakespeare, where I have usually trusted to Dr. Schmidt.

¹ In Webster's dictionary, the etymology of canopy is well and sufficiently given, but many articles are very confused. Thus Course is derived from 'F. cours, course, Prov. cors, corsa. Ital. corso, corsa, Span. and Port. curso, Lat. cursus,' &c. Here the Latin form should have followed the French. With the Prov., Ital., Span., and Port. forms we have absolutely nothing to do.

A chief feature of the present work, and one which has entailed enormous labour, is that, whenever I cite old forms or foreign words, from which any given English word is derived or with which it is connected, I have actually verified the spellings and significations of these words by help of the dictionaries of which a list is given in the 'Key to the General Plan' immediately preceding the letter A. I have done this in order to avoid two common errors; (1) that of misspelling the words cited¹, and (2) that of misinterpreting them. The exact source or edition whence every word is copied is, in every case, precisely indicated, it being understood that, when no author is specified, the word is taken from the book mentioned in the 'Key.' Thus every statement made may be easily verified, and I can assure those who have had no experience in such investigations that this is no small matter. I have frequently found that some authors manipulate the meanings of words to suit their own convenience, when not tied down in this manner; and, not wishing to commit the like mistake, which approaches too nearly to dishonesty to be wittingly indulged in, I have endeavoured by this means to remove the temptation of being led to swerve from the truth in this particular. Yet it may easily be that fancy has sometimes led me astray in places where there is room for some speculation, and I must therefore beg the reader, whenever he has any doubts, to verify the statements for himself (as, in general, he easily may), and he will then see the nature of the premises from which the conclusions have been drawn. In many instances it will be found that the meanings are given, for the sake of brevity, less fully than they might have been, and that the arguments for a particular view are often far stronger than they are represented to be.

The materials collected by the Philological Society will doubtless decide many debateable points, and will definitely confirm or refute, in many cases, the results here arrived at. It is, perhaps, proper to point out that French words are more often cited from Cotgrave than in their modern forms. Very few good words have been borrowed by us from French at a late period, so that modern French is not of much use to an English etymologist. In particular, I have intentionally disregarded the modern French accentuation. To derive our word recreation from the F. récréation gives a false impression; for it was certainly borrowed from French before the accents were added.

In the case of verbs and substantives (or other mutually related words), considerable pains have been taken to ascertain and to point out whether the verb has been formed from the substantive, or whether, conversely, the substantive is derived from the verb. This often makes a good deal of difference to the etymology. Thus, when Richardson derives the adj. full from the verb to fill, he reverses the fact, and shews that he was entirely innocent of any knowledge of the relative value of the Anglo-Saxon vowels. Similar mistakes are common even in treating of Greek and Latin. Thus, when Richardson says that the Latin laborare is 'of uncertain etymology,' he must have meant the remark to apply to the sb. labor. The etymology of laborare is obvious, viz. from that substantive.

The numerous cross-references will enable the student, in many cases, to trace back words to the Aryan root, and will frequently lead to additional information. Whenever a word has a 'doublet,' i.e. appears in a varying form, a note is made of the fact at the end of the article; and a complete list of these will be found in the Appendix.

The Appendix contains a list of Prefixes, a general account of Suffixes, a List of Aryan Roots, and Lists of Homonyms and Doublets. Besides these, I have attempted to give lists shewing the Distribution of the Sources of English. As these lists are far more comprehensive than any which I have been able to find in other books, and are subdivided into classes in a much stricter manner than has ever yet been attempted, I may crave some indulgence for the errors in them.

¹ With all this care, mistakes creep in; see the Errata. But I feel sure that they are not very numerous.

From the nature of the work, I have been unable to obtain much assistance in it. The mechanical process of preparing the copy for press, and the subsequent revision of proofs, have entailed upon me no inconsiderable amount of labour; and the constant shifting from one language to another has required patience and attention. The result is that a few annoying oversights have occasionally crept in, due mostly to a brief lack of attention on the part of eye or brain. In again going over the whole work for the purpose of making an epitome of it, I have noticed some of these errors, and a list of them is given in the Errata. Other errors have been kindly pointed out to me, which are also noted in the Addenda; and I beg leave to thank those who have rendered me such good service. I may also remark that letters have reached me which cannot be turned to any good account, and it is sometimes surprising that a few correspondents should be so eager to manifest their entire ignorance of all philological principles. Such cases are, however, exceptional, and I am very anxious to receive, and to make use of, all reasonable suggestions. The experience gained in writing the first 'part' of the book, from A--D, proved of much service; and I believe that errors are fewer near the end than near the beginning. Whereas I was at first inclined to trust too much to Brachet's Etymological French Dictionary, I now believe that Scheler is a better guide, and that I might have consulted Littré even more frequently than I have done. Near the beginning of the work, I had no copy of Littré of my own, nor of Palsgrave, nor of some other very useful books; but experience soon shewed what books were most necessary to be added to my very limited collectin. In the study of English etymology, it often happens that instantaneous reference to some rather unexpected source is almost an absolute necessity, and it is somewhat difficult to make provision for such a call within the space of one small room. This is the real reason why some references to what may, to some students, be very familiar works, have been taken at second-hand. I have merely made the best use I could of the materials nearest at hand. But for this, the work would have been more often interrupted, and time would have been wasted which could ill be spared.

It is also proper to state that with many articles I am not satisfied. Those that presented no difficulty, and took up but little time, are probably the best and most certain. In very difficult cases, my usual rule has been not to spend more than three hours over one word. During that time, I made the best I could of it, and then let it go. I hope it may be understood that my object in making this and other similar statements regarding my difficulties is merely to enable the reader to consult the book with the greater safety, and to enable him to form his own opinion as to how far it is to be trusted. My honest opinion is that those whose philological knowledge is but small may safely accept the results here given, since they may else do worse; whilst advanced students will receive them with that caution which so difficult a study soon renders habitual.

One remark concerning the printing of the book is worth making. It is common for writers to throw the blame of errors upon the printers, and there is in this a certain amount of truth in some instances. But illegible writing should also receive its fair portion of blame; and it is only just to place the fact on record, that I have frequently received from the press a first rough proof of a sheet of this work, abounding in words taken from a great many languages, in which not a single printer's error occurred of any kind whatever; and many others in which the errors were very trivial and unimportant, and seldom extended to the actual spelling.

I am particularly obliged to those who have kindly given me hints or corrections; Mr. Sweet's account of the word left, and his correction for the word bless, have been very acceptable, and I much regret that his extremely valuable collection of the earliest English vocabularies and other records is not yet published, as it will certainly yield valuable information. I am also indebted for some useful hints to Professor Cowell, and to the late Mr. Henry Nicol, whose knowledge of early French phonology was almost unrivalled. Also to Dr. Stratmann, and the Rev. A. L. Mayhew, of Oxford, for several corrections; to Professor Potwin, of Hudson, Ohio; to Dr. J. N. Grönland, of Stockholm, for some notes upon Swedish; to Dr. Murray, the Rev. O.W. Tancock, and the Rev. D. Silvan Evans, for various notes; and to several other correspondents who have kindly taken a practical interest in the work.

In some portions of the Appendix I have received very acceptable assistance. The preparation of the lists shewing the Distribution of Words was entirely the work of others; I have done little more than revise them. For the word-lists from A--Literature, I am indebted to Miss Mantle, of Girton College; and for the lists from Litharge--Reduplicate, to A. P. Allsopp, Esq., of Trinity College, Cambridge. The rest was prepared by my eldest daughter, who also prepared the numerous examples of English words given in the List of Aryan Roots, and the List of Doublets. To Miss F. Whitehead I am indebted for the List of Homonyms.

To all the above-named and to other well-wishers I express my sincere thanks.

But I cannot take leave of a work which has closely occupied my time during the past four years without expressing the hope that it may prove of service, not only to students of comparative philology and of early English, but to all who are interested in the origin, history, and development of the noble language which is the common inheritance of all English-speaking peoples. It is to be expected that, owing to the increased attention which of late years has been given to the study of languages, many of the conclusions at which I have arrived may require important modification or even entire change; but I nevertheless trust that the use of this volume may tend, on the whole, to the suppression of such guesswork as entirely ignores all rules. I trust that it may, at the same time, tend to strengthen the belief that, as in all other studies, true results are only to be obtained by reasonable inferences from careful observations, and that the laws which regulate the development of language, though frequently complicated by the interference of one word with another, often present the most surprising examples of regularity. The speech of man is, in fact, influenced by physical laws, or in other words, by the working of divine power. It is therefore possible to pursue the study of language in a spirit of reverence similar to that in which we study what are called the works of nature; and by aid of that spirit we may gladly perceive a new meaning in the sublime line of our poet Coleridge, that

'Earth, with her thousand voices, praises God.'

CAMBRIDGE, Sept. 29, 1881.

From An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, by the Rev. Walter W. Skeat, Litt.D. LL.D. Edin., M.A. Oxon. Elrington and Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon in the University of Cambridge. Second Edition, 1883.