Dr. Webster proposes as the derivative of Dabster, “Qu. from adapt, with ster, Sax. steoran, to steer." Is it conceivable that a term of common life exclusively, should have arisen from a root belonging to a learned language, and scarcely used except by persons of some reading, with the addition of a very rare suffix from another dead tongue? To say nothing of the improbable modification of the Latin element, where can a well-authenticated instance of hybridism parallel with this be found? Conjectures are not to be excluded from etymology. Indeed, in this domain, without conjecture a large amount of what is probably true cannot be reached. But the etymologist must first establish his principles by historic investigation; and cases that he can neither refer to a principle, nor adduce evidence for their supposed anomalous changes, he must leave, however reluctantly. And he will sometimes be wrong, when his conjectures accord with established principles. In this department, principles-the principles I now mean of literal changes and equivalents-in many cases only show that a relation may exist, whilst in particular instances the history of a term proves the possible relation does not exist, so that some of the best conclusions of to-day, resting on mere probabilities, may be overthrown by some discovery to-morrow. But this conjecture of Dr. Webster has the support of no principle; is a bare forced derivation, and far from being an evidence of a happy gift of divination. He would have done better, as in the case of tapster and punster, to have said nothing. The plausibility or the probability of the following conjecture is left to any that are disposed to consider it. The st may be of merely accidental insertion,-such insertion of insignificant letters dialectically, or for euphony, or by a false analogy, being no unusual thing,—and the whole suffix ster, then, simply denotes the agent; and as a tapster is one who taps or draws, and a punster one who puns, so a dabster is one who, by continuing to dab at a thing (dab is an intransitive as well as a transitive verb), is able to hit the mark. In these words (and perhaps teamster is like them), ster is distinct from the suffix in songster and spinster. Youngster is a case different from either.

Dactylet, after the example of Todd, is defined simply "a dactyle." Here, and elsewhere, usually, I think, except when it is employed in its primary, physical sense, as in gosling and stripling, there is an omission to note the peculiar term of expression given by the diminutive form. It seems to me that the peculiar shade imparted to each word, in the case of our few diminutive forms, should be pointed out, whether it is the idea of tenderness, of derision, or of sportiveness, which latter modification is essentially the one here:

"Whoever saw a colt, wanton and wild,

Yoked with a slow-foot ox on a fallow field,

Can right areed how handsomely befits

Dull spondees with the English dactylets.”—Bishop Hall.

Dactylist, quoting Todd again, is defined "one who writes flowing verse." Instead of being employed in this general sense, dactylist denotes a proficient in dactylic versification, and is applied especially to those who compose in Latin and Greek.

"Dr. Johnson prefers the Latin poetry of May and Cowley to that of Milton, and thinks May to be the first of the three. May is certainly a sonorous dactylist."-Warton.

In the etymology of Dactylomancy, there is an error of no great importance, the giving of Gr. μαντική instead of μαντεία.

No derivation of Dade and Daddle is given, though one quite satisfactory can be proposed; nor is their affinity with tote, toddle, suggested, nor is either of its two intransitive significations noticed, namely:

First, the literal sense, to walk as a child just beginning to go alone.

"No sooner taught to dade than from their mother trip."-Drayton. Secondly, the figurative sense, to go or move slowly.

"But easily from her source as Isis gently dades.”—Drayton.

But these omissions are of little importance, as dade never obtained more than a local use; and Drayton is the only author adduced by Richardson as employing it.

Of Daddock no intimation is given that it is a local word.

The etymology of Dado is simply traced to the Italian. Webster did not perceive that the French dé, the Provençal dat, the Portuguese, Spanish and Italian dado, come from the Latin participle datus, in its secondary sense of cast, thrown; and that from the cubical form of the die of gaming, the architectural application was drawn. Apparently, he considered the word of Celtic origin. See his etymology of Die.

Of Dadal, Johnson declares that "skilful is not the true sense, nor should be imitated." Todd contradicts him, asserting that it "has not only as good authority as can be produced in the language, but is supported also in the same meaning by Tasso." Webster follows Todd, defining it,

"1. Various; variegated.-Spenser.

"2. Skilful."

There are here two mistakes to be corrected. First, if the defi

nitions are correct, their arrangement is wrong. Dædal is derived from the name of the famous architect Dædalus, and therefore skilful is the primary meaning. Secondly, in direct opposition to Johnson, skilful is the only true meaning of the word. This is its sense in the very passage that he quotes from Spenser to illustrate the meaning, "various; variegated."

"Then doth the dædal earth throw forth to thee

Out of her fruitful lap abundant flowers."-Spenser.

The earth may, indeed, be considered as variegated with flowers, but how much discrimination and taste is requisite to discern that that is not the meaning of the poet; that there is a personification; that the earth is viewed as an artist of wondrous skill, as displayed in her flowery productions? Dadal is employed in passages of great beauty from Spenser to Bulwer; and not one is yet found where it bears the sense of "various; variegated." It always means ingenious, skilful; but is sometimes applied to the architect in an active sense, and at others to his productions in a passive sense.

For the etymology of Daff, n., Webster gives "Icelandic dauf, allied to deaf." This is so far correct, but Webster probably mistakes in some of the affinities of deaf, and certainly in its radical signification, which is not "thick." The words most directly akin are German taub and daub, senseless; Dutch daff, dull; and Swedish doef, stupid; all of which, with little doubt, are derived from a verb signifying to push or strike; so that daff radically denotes one who has received a stunning blow, and then, devoid of sense.

Daff, to daunt, without any sufficient authority, Webster treats as a distinct word from daff, to toss aside. The Scottish daff in the different senses, to be foolish; to make sport; to toy,—is in truth also etymologically identical.

The etymological relation of Daft is not given. It is a participial adjective, from the same source as the noun and the verb daff. Compare its local English sense, stupid, silly, with the signification before assigned to the radix.

If there is a sufficient object in giving with Daffodil the corresponding French, Italian, &c., which are mere foreign dialectic variations, it is unpardonable to omit the old English forms consecrated by Milton and Spenser.

"Strew me the ground with daffadowndillies,

And cowslips, and kingcups, and loved lilies."-Spenser.

"Bid amaranthus all his beauty shed,

And daffodillies fill their cups with tears,

To strew the laureat hearse where Lycid lies."-Milton.

Webster gives the word Dag as if it belonged to three distinct families, and yet its separate senses, and others beside, attached to forms in cognate languages, are all deducible from the one idea, to penetrate. The first meaning given is "a dagger," and bearing the same sense, there are D. dagge; Sw. daggert; Fr. dague; Sp. and It. daga; and also Ger. degen, with the kindred meaning, a sword. Also the Eng. dagger is probably a mere dialectic variation of the same, the er being, as sometimes in other branches of the Gothic stock, an insig nificant suffix. The next meaning, "a hand-gun; a pistol," is not separated by Webster from the preceding, so that no remark upon it is required. It is but another modification of the idea of a penetrating power thus to conceive of dew, in Swedish dagg; kindred with which is the Danish taage, mist. The other meanings, "a loose end" (better, a shred), and "a leather latchet," are passive senses, expressing the result of an action, of the kind produced by instruments whose names are from the same root. As intermediate in sense, the A. S. dag, anything loose, may be adduced.

Webster, properly enough, says nothing of the etymology of the verb Dag, as its identical stem sufficiently indicates its connection with the preceding noun; but, inconsistently with the treatment of the noun, the significations, "to cut into slips" and "to daggle," are not given in distinct articles. Both the meanings given by Webster, and its local English usage as an intransitive, to drizzle, and the significations of corresponding verbs in the languages, are deducible from the radical sense assigned to the stem.

Of Daggle, the diminutive of dag, Webster says, "probably from dag, dew, or its root; "—one of those instances of doubtful expression so strangely contrasting with his unqualified assertions in respect to things wholly wrapped in the blackness of darkness.

Of Dais the etymology is not given, and yet through diverse changes, with various significations, it can be clearly traced back as far as the Gr. Size, to throw. (See Diez, Etymologisches Woerterbuch.) Dr. Webster, trusting to a comparison of vocabularies, failed to see this origin; for, had he perceived it, he would have either given it as in the case of dish and desk, or made a reference as in the case of disk, the other words of the same parentage.-Dais has had applications varying from those given by Webster.

Of Dalliance, and the corresponding intransitive verb Dally, Johnson placed the literal signification delay last in order. Webster has made the correction in the verb, but in the noun he has carelessly left the signification delay in the last place, notwithstanding his explicit statement that it is the literal meaning.

Dally, v. t., is defined, "to delay; to defer; to put off; to amuse till a proper opportunity; as, to dally off the time. [Not much used.] Knolles." But it is altogether probable that dally never occurs as a transitive verb; and further, notwithstanding Johnson's interpretation and Webster's adoption of it, that the compound verb, to dally off, does not mean "to delay," &c. This definition, as explained by its last member, requires a personal object. Is the sense not rather "to wear away, as with trifles or mere pretexts"?

Dam, n. is defined,

"A mole, bank, or mound of earth, or any wall, or a frame of wood, raised to obstruct a current of water, and to raise it for the purpose of driving millwheels, and for other purposes. Any work that stops or confines water in a pond or basin, or causes it to rise."

A

This definition is very wordy, besides not being quite accurate. dam may be simply for obstructing water without raising it. It is enough to tell what the dam is and does. The final end is not a legitimate part of the definition. If otherwise, it is very carelessly left. The definition, freed from verbiage, might stand, "A mole, bank, or other artificial work, to obstruct or to raise water."

Of Dam, v. t., the first definition is,

“To make a dam, or to stop a stream of water by a bank of earth, or by any other work; to confine or to shut in water. It is common to use, after the verb, in, up, or out; as, to dam in, or to dam up, the water; and to dam out is to prevent water from entering."

The definition is wanting in directness; and the statement relative to the compound expressions does not tell the exact truth and the whole truth. It should be somewhat in this manner:

To obstruct or to raise water by some artificial work. To dam up, is to obstruct a flow; to dam in, to confine within certain limits; and to dam out, to exclude from certain limits.

The given etymology of Damage, n., suggests several remarks of general application; first, clearness should be secured; secondly, only what is pertinent should be admitted; thirdly, the highest utility should be studied. Obviously, then, it is requisite that the relations and the leading use of each word given in tracing the etymology, and the several grades of the descent, both in form and signification, should be indicated. Therefore, words etymologically identical should be given first, and in the order in which their dialects stand to that of the word elucidated. This relation of etymological identity may be conveniently indicated by prefixing the sign of equality. It would