“The Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories: The life stories of over 12,000 words”, edited by Glynnis Chantrell

559 pages, Oxford University Press, ISBN-13: 978-0198631217

The Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories – edited by Glynnis Chantrell – describes the origins and development of thousands of core words found in the English language, complete with dates where recorded evidence of use has been found by the ongoing research for the Oxford English Dictionary. Additional word histories outside this core group are included for words with a particularly interesting story to tell and links between words are given where these enhance the picture. A key feature of the Dictionary is the inclusion of a large number of well-known idioms with dates of original use with details of how and when they came about, such as “say it with flowers”. Colorful popular beliefs are explored about words such as “posh” and “snob”, while insights are given into our social history revealed by language development, such as the connection in a Roman soldier’s mind of “salary” with “salt”. Another interesting feature is the notion of word relationships, as with the following:

• shared roots (“stare” and “starve” both from a base meaning “be rigid”) 
• common ancestry (“mongrel” related to “mingle” and “among”) 
• surprising commonality (“wage” and “wed”) 
• typical formation (“blab”, “bleat”, “chatter”, “gibber” are all imitative of sounds) 
• influence by association (“cloudscape” on the pattern of “landscape”) 
• shared word building elements (“hyperspace”, “hypersonic”, “hyperlink”)

But for all that, in reading the Dictionary one continually wonders if anyone would actually ever find this book really more useful than your average, run-of-the-mill dictionary. The chief problem as I see it are the words selected: the 12,000 entries all cover common words in the standard vocabulary, there are no phrases, no slang, no jargon and no profanity...dammit. In short, the book omits most of the words that people are really curious about. The alphabetical arrangement is not conducive to conveying information on etymological or linguistic patterns, and while there is the above-described attempt to describe derivations, these are simply lists of prefixes and suffixes under different names and formats. The entries are fairly compact, typically running from six to eight lines. They are in plain English with few abbreviations or other etymological jargon, and while this makes the information very accessible to the average reader, it also means is that each entry contains little more than one will find in the etymological notes of a good collegiate dictionary. This is a shame: Oxford Press has gloriously rich files on word histories, and while this information usually only makes it into publication in clipped and condensed form, a book that really delved into the history of words would be a joy. It would be the first time much of this research ever saw the light of day and it would provide insight into how the Oxford lexicographers make their etymological calls. Instead, we get part of a collegiate dictionary.