[100] See Génin, Des Variations du Langage Français, p. 12.
[101] [Dr. Murray in the N.E.D. calls these by the convenient term ‘nonce-words’.]
[102] Persa, iv. 6, 20-23. At the same time these words may be earnest enough; such was the ἐλαχιστότερος of St. Paul (Ephes. iii, 8); just as in the Middle Ages some did not account it sufficient to call themselves “fratres minores, minimi, postremi”, but coined ‘postremissimi’ to express the depth of their “voluntary humility”.
[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).]