{103} It is curious that a correspondent of Skinner (_Etymologicon_, 1671), although quite ignorant of this story, and indeed wholly astray in his application, had suggested that ‘chouse’ might be thus connected with the Turkish ‘chiaus’. I believe Gifford, in his edition of Ben Jonson, was the first to clear up the matter. A passage in _The Alchemist_ (Act i. Sc. 1) will have put him on the right track. [But Dr. Murray notes that Gifford’s story, as given above, has not hitherto been substantiated from any independent source, and is so far open to doubt.] {104} [These are quite distinct words, though perhaps distantly related.] {105} If there were any doubt about this matter, which indeed there is not, a reference to Latimer’s famous _Sermon on Cards_ would abundantly remove it, where ‘triumph’ and ‘trump’ are interchangeably used. {106} [Dr. Murray does not regard these words as ultimately identical.] {107} [‘Rant’ (old Dutch _ranten_) has no connection with ‘rend’ (Anglo-Saxon _hrendan_) (Skeat).] {108} On these words see a learned discussion in _English Retraced_, Cambridge, 1862. {109} [These are quite unconnected (Skeat).] {110} [Neither are these words to be confused with one another.] {111} The appropriating of ‘Franc_e_s’ to women and ‘Franc_i_s’ to men is quite of modern introduction; it was formerly nearly as often Sir Franc_e_s Drake as Sir Franc_i_s, while Fuller (_Holy State_, b. iv, c. 14) speaks of Franc_i_s Brandon, eldest _daughter_ of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk; and see Ben Jonson’s _New Inn_, Act. ii, Sc. 1. {112} [Not connected.] {113} [‘Sad’ akin to ‘sated’ bears no relationship to ‘set’; neither does ‘medley’ to ‘motley’.] {114} [On the connection of these words see my _Folk and their Word-Lore_, p. 110.] {115} [Not connected, see Skeat.]