Notes and Queries, Vol. IV, Number 111, December 13, 1851: A Medium of Inter-communication for Literary Men, Artists, Antiquaries, Genealogists, etc. — John Shaqi
Notes and Queries, Vol. IV, Number 111, December 13, 1851: A Medium of Inter-communication for Literary Men, Artists, Antiquaries, Genealogists, etc.Various
History
Notes and Queries, Vol. IV, Number 111, December 13, 1851: A Medium of Inter-communication for Literary Men, Artists, Antiquaries, Genealogists, etc.
Various
Questions and answers -- Periodicals
Whilst referring thus to our early lexicographers, allow me to allude
to an anecdote respecting, Dr. Adam Lyttleton, who, when compiling his
Latin Dictionary, announced the verb "concurro" to his amanuensis; the
latter, imagining, from an affinity of sound, that the first two
syllables gave the English meaning of the verb, said, "_Concur_, I
suppose, sir." To which the Doctor peevishly replied, "_Concur_,
condog." The scribe wrote down what he supposed his employer dictated,
and the word "condog" was inserted, and stands as one interpretation of
"concurro" in the first edition of the Dictionary; it is, of course,
expunged from subsequent ones. I give this statement as I find it in
print. I do not vouch for its correctness, not having the first edition
of the Dictionary to refer to. Strange to say, however, "condog" was
regarded as a synonym, or rather as an equivalent to "concur," long
before the date of the first edition of Dr. Lyttleton's _Dictionary_. In
Cockeram's _Dictionarie_, before referred to, sixth edition, 1639, I
find the second alphabet, among the words which the author calls
_vulgar_, the verb "to agree" defined "Concurre, cohere, _condog_,
condiscend." Cockeram's _Dictionary_ was evidently a work of some
authority in its day; it was dedicated to Sir Richard Boyle, and reached
to, at least, a _sixth_ edition, which edition is announced in the
title-page as "revised and enlarged," and therefore "condog" did not owe
its place in it to the error of an amanuensis or transcriber. The book,
although small, contains much curious matter, to which I may, perhaps,
hereafter refer. In his "premonition to the reader," he says, "where
thou meetest with a word marked thus +, know you that it is now out of
use, and only used of some ancient writers." Among these words thus
marked as obsolete in 1639, I find, on casually opening the book, the
following, "abandon, abate, bardes, insanity." He also defines _Troy
weight_ as "a pound weight of twelve ounces, wherewith _bread_, precious
stones, gold and silver are weighed." Blount also (1670), and Cole
(1685), say bread was sold by Troy weight; the latter adds medicines to
the articles sold by that standard. Cowell, in his _Law Dictionary_
(1708), says, "Electuaries, and medicinal things, and _brede_, are to be
weighed by Troy weight;" Bayley, in 1753, says, "Gold, silver, drugs,"
&c., are weighed by Troy weight, but does not enumerate bread. Can any
of your readers inform me when bread was first directed to be sold by
Troy weight, and when it ceased to be so?
P. T.
Stoke Newington.
_Foreign Ambassadors_ (Vol. iv., p. 442.).--There is a list of French
ambassadors, envoys, ministers, and other political agents at the court
of England, in the _Annuaire_ of the Société de l'histoire de France for
1848, which is the twelfth volume of the series. The list commences in
1396, and is continued to 1830.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account