Collins - tenth edition (1956)

Tenth edition 1956, reprinted 1960, 1962, 1965 (with corrections), 1967
Published by Oxford University Press, printed by Vivian Ridler

The same binding and format used since the seventh edition; the publisher’s imprint on the full-title page was changed to the following:

LONDON
OXFORD UNIVERISTY PRESS
NEW YORK TORONTO

The text was wholly reset for the first time since the first edition, allowing a thirty-five-page increase.

Click to see a pop-up image of the dustjacket to this edition (56k). While I have not seen any other examples of dustjackets from this era, it is likely that similar ones were used since the seventh edition at least, as the design was common for ‘academic’ editions.

The ‘Extracts from the Preface to the First Edition’ given in this edition is different from that found in editions since the fifth. It has been silently altered in minor ways, mostly to update the printing conventions, and truncated so that it is more than a page shorter than previously. The reason behind this cannot have been to make it fit the available space, as the verso of the last page (p. viii)—facing the start to ‘Author and Printer’—is blank. It is more likely that much of the original’s Edwardian waffle was thought unnecessary.

Full-title page i (click to see a pop-up image, 28k)
Note to the Tenth Edition (unsigned) (text below) iii
Extracts from the Preface to the First Edition (text below) iv–v
Author and Printer (R. W. Chapman) (click here for text) ix–xv
Accent and Pronunciation (click to see a pop-up image, 35k) xvi
Text 1-442 (last page blank: ‘Z Notes’)

NOTE TO THE TENTH EDITION

In addition to the necessary revision of dates, &c., opportunity has been taken in this tenth (reset) edition to remove entries (e.g. long-hand abbreviations) which may now be considered obsolete and of adding a number of South African words in general use and of inserting after certain entries their American equivalent spellings. Some adjustment to Indian and Pakistani place-names has been necessitated by political changes. In accordance with the trend of modern usage diphthongs have been discarded and accents omitted from musical terms. The change to single quotation marks reflects what may be a growing practice in book-printing. Otherwise the essential character of the book has been retained.

Information regarding the original plan and method of compilation is given in the extracts from the preface to the first edition (see pages v-vii).

As in the case of former editions, the reviser will be glad to consider any criticisms or suggestions which may add to the usefulness of the book.

29 November 1955

EXTRACTS FROM THE PREFACE
TO THE FIRST EDITION

A sketch of the way in which this work was compiled may be of interest. All suitable words, phrases, &c., were copied on to separate slips. These were then arranged alphabetically, duplicates eliminated, and the manuscript copy made. With this my duties as Author ceased and those of Editor commenced, for from that time I merely co-ordinated the opinions of others upon my work.

In the selection of words, my object has been to insert only those, spelt in more than one way, which are likely to be met with in general reading: to deal, in fact, with what are briefly called ‘duplicate spellings’. I was compelled to omit many special, unusual, or technical, words and phrases, so that the book might be handy in size.

That manuscript additions may be readily made, I have included after each letter one or two blank pages headed ‘Notes.’

Where a choice has been made between two or more forms of any word, it should not be concluded that I consider the other forms wrong, but merely that the weight of evidence has led me to select the one given.

Many foreign words and phrases are included on account of the frequent mistakes that are made with the accents. The translations given are usually free ones; literal renderings being generally omitted as often obvious, and as less practically useful. In a few cases an endeavour has been made to correct popular misapprehensions: thus cui bono? does not, except in modern incorrect usage, mean ‘What is the good of it?’ I have also added the pronunciation of some words which are frequently mispronounced. A cursory glance through the book will reveal other special features on which it is unnecessary to dwell: such as the sizes of type, books, and paper; the explanation of printing terms; punctuation; and the spelling of place-names.

That more than twenty thousand separate entries, containing more than one hundred thousand words, and many of these not easily spelt, should have survived without any error, is more than can be hoped for.

It has been a great advantage to have had the proofs read by natives of other countries than England, for they have not only checked the words in their own language, but have also shown where, while the meaning was clear to an Englishman, it was not necessarily so to a foreigner.

The question as to the use of capital or small initial letters for many words was a constant source of trouble during the preparation of the book, for no English authority—not even the Oxford English Dictionary—seems specially to have dealt with this point.

Many criticisms may be passed on the different treatment of nearly allied words in the following pages: why one should be hyphened and the other not; or why one should be in italic type and other in roman. May I, however, point out that the present is not an attempt to rationalize the English language, but merely an endeavour to represent the language as it is now used by the people most capable of writing it?

A few observations are called for with reference to the general adoption throughout the book of the suffix –ize in place of –ise; though the latter is much used. The main reason is, that –ize is the form adopted by the Editors of the Oxford English Dictionary—the best authority in England.

The general rule for the division of words—"Never separate a group of letters representing a single sound; and so divide a word that each part retains its present sound"—is the result of a large correspondence on this one point alone. Contrary to what might be supposed, the greater the knowledge of etymology possessed by the writer, the more he would seem to favour this division by sound. As this matter has at first to be dealt with by the compositor alone—for the author cannot tell when writing the copy what word will need division—it is singularly fortunate that so easy a rule, requiring no etymological knowledge, can be framed. The case for the phonetic division of words has been ably put by Professor Skeat: ‘The rule for the division of words is not “the rule of the root” by any means, but the rule of the sound or pronunciation. It is much best to ignore the root and go by the sound. Thus it is usual to make such divisions as are seen in impu-dence, solilo-quize, peru-sal, counte-nance, plea-sure, princi-pal; in perfect contempt of the root-forms, which are respectively pud-, loqu-, us-, ten-, plac-, cap-. We simply regard the utterance, writing pe-ruse at one moment and pe-ru-sal at another. Nothing is gained by pretending to keep the root intact, when the spoken utterance does nothing of the kind.’

While probably no one will agree with everything contained in this book, I hope it may be found that the number of marginal notes needed to bring it into accordance with the views of those who use it will be as few as could be expected, considering the difficulty of the subject-matter, and that fact that it is, I believe, the first time it has been thoroughly and systematically investigated in any country.

F. HOWARD COLLINS

1905

Click on Collins.html to return to the Collins Editions page, or use your brower’s ‘Back’ button.
Click on Collins - ninth edition (1946) to go to the previous edition.
Click on Collins - eleventh edition (1973) to go to the next edition.