human
Is _infortuner_ to be found in any old Dictionary? I would state that I have not been able to find it; but in Cockeram's _English Dictionarie_, 1639, I find
gpt
and in Bailey's _Dictionary_, vol. i. 1753,
human
gpt
referred to Chaucer;
human
gpt
referred to Chaucer; and in vol. ii of Bailey's _Dictionary_, 1727, I find
human
It is singular that Cockeram gives
gpt
in his first alphabet, which, he says, in his preface,
human
gpt
Unfortunate he places in the second alphabet, which, he says,
human
Neither Cole's _English Dictionary_, 1685, nor Blount's _Glossographia_, 1670, nor Phillips' _World of Words_, 1678, contain the word
gpt
in any of its terminations or applications. Mr. Halliwell, in his _Dictionary of Provincial Words_, gives the word
human
to his amanuensis; the latter, imagining, from an affinity of sound, that the first two syllables gave the English meaning of the verb, said,
gpt
To which the Doctor peevishly replied,
human
The scribe wrote down what he supposed his employer dictated, and the word
gpt
was inserted, and stands as one interpretation of
human
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,
gpt
was regarded as a synonym, or rather as an equivalent to
human
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
gpt
defined
human
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
gpt
and therefore
human
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
gpt
he says,
human
Among these words thus marked as obsolete in 1639, I find, on casually opening the book, the following,
gpt
He also defines _Troy weight_ as
human
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,
gpt
Electuaries, and medicinal things, and _brede_, are to be weighed by Troy weight; Bayley, in 1753, says,
human
Gold, silver, drugs,