[191] On groom, see the excellent article in Skeat’s Etymological Dictionary.
[192] Cf. Skeat, Prin. Eng. Etymol., p. 395, from which and from his Dictionary most of these ‘obscured’ compounds are taken.
[193] Forms like fur-booted, blackeyed, etc., do not, of course, belong here. They are derived, with the suffix ed, from compounds or groups like fur-boot, black eye, eagle eye, cone-shape, etc., or formed by analogy to such derivatives. Some, indeed, are true compounds, but then the second element is an adjective and not a past participle. In that case they should be ranged under the compound formed from two adjectives.
[194] The great importance of this distinction will be shown later on, see page 324.
[195] It will be noticed that most of these formulative groups are alliterative.
[196] See Skeat, Etymol. Dict., s.v. Jack.
[197] A blackbird may be an albino and we still call it a blackbird.
[198] For the disputed derivation, see Whitney and Skeat, s.v.
[199] The student should note the difference: in the Old High German the article is nominative; in our English translation it is genitive: ‘the man’s son’ = ‘a son of the man.’
[200] It is, of course, not intended to say that this very combination was thus formed. It is an example to illustrate the process, and no more.