in familiar use. I may instance alms, angel, bishop, butter,
capon, chest, church, clerk, copper, devil, dish, hemp, imp, martyr,
paper (ultimately of Egyptian origin), plaster, plum, priest, rose,
sack, school, silk, treacle, trout. Of course the poor old woman who
says she is "a martyr to tooth-ache" is quite unconscious that she
is talking Greek. Probably she is not without some smattering of
Persian, and knows the sense of lilac, myrtle, orange, peach, and
rice; of Sanskrit, whence pepper and sugar-candy; of Arabic, whence
coffee, cotton, jar, mattress, senna, and sofa; and she will know
enough Hebrew, partly from her Bible, to be quite familiar with a
large number of biblical names, such as Adam and Abraham and Isaac,
and very many more, not forgetting the very common John, Joseph,
Matthew, and Thomas, and the still more familiar Jack and Jockey;
and even with a few words of Hebrew origin, such as alleluia, balm,
bedlam, camel, cider, and sabbath. The discovery of the New World
has further familiarised us all with chocolate and tomato, which are
Mexican; and with potato, which is probably old Caribbean. These facts
have to be borne in mind when it is too rashly laid down that words in
English dialects are of English origin.

Foreign words of this kind are, however, not very numerous, and can
easily be allowed for. And, as has been said, our vocabulary admits
also of a certain amount of Celtic. It remains to consider what other
sources have helped to form our dialects. The two most prolific in
this respect are Scandinavian and French, which require careful
consideration.

It is notorious that the Northern dialect admits Scandinavian words
freely; and the same is true, to a lesser degree, of East Midland.
They are rare in Southern, and in the Southern part of West Midland.
The constant invasions of the Danes, and the subjection of England
under the rule of three Danish kings, Canute and his two successors,
have very materially increased our vocabulary; and it is remarkable
that they have perhaps done more for our dialects than for the
standard language. The ascendancy of Danish rule was in the eleventh
century; but (with a few exceptions) it was long before words which
must really have been introduced at that time began to appear in our
literature. They must certainly have been looked upon, at the first,
as being rustic or dialectal. I have nowhere seen it remarked, and I
therefore call attention to the fact, that