that, the book being intended for the non-specialist, the
compression was a little too severe, and likely sometimes to lead to
misunderstanding. I have tried to remedy this defect in the present
edition, both by giving fuller explanations and by supplying further
quotations in illustration of the less common words and uses. No
absolutely new matter is introduced, but a number of fresh words have
been added as examples of points already noticed. The general
arrangement of the book remains unchanged, except that a few paragraphs
have been shifted to what seemed more natural positions.

Friendly correspondents in all parts of the world, to many of whom I
must apologise for my failure to answer their letters, have sent me
information of interest and value. In some cases I have been able to
make use of such information for this edition. Many readers have called
my attention to local and American survivals of words and meanings
described as obsolete. This is a subject on which a great deal could be
written, but it lies outside the plan of this book, which does not
aspire to do more than furnish some instruction or entertainment to
those who are interested in the curiosities of etymology.

ERNEST WEEKLEY.

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION

It is just five years since this little book was first submitted to the
toleration of word-lovers, a class much more numerous than the author
had suspected. The second edition, revised and slightly enlarged,
appeared in 1913. Since then the text has once more been subjected to a
searching revision, and it is hoped that the book now contains no
statement which is not in accord with common sense and the present state
of philological knowledge. Only those who have experience of such work
know how easy it is to stray unconsciously from the exact truth in
publishing the results of etymological research. Moreover, new light is
constantly being thrown on old problems, and theories long triumphant
have occasionally to yield to fresh evidence. To take an example from
this volume, the traditional derivation of _trousers_ from French
_trousse_ is now shown by the _New English Dictionary_ to be
chronologically improbable. That great and cautious work unhesitatingly
describes _hatchment_ as a corruption of _achievement_, but Professor
Derocquigny, of Lille, has shown (_Modern Language Review_, January
1913) that this etymology is "preposterous," _hacheme