18
NOTES AND QUERIES. [9* s. VIIL JULY 6, 1901.
Dacia with Dania ; (5) that St. Clement first
became the " patron of seamen" amongst the
navigators of the Euxine, who for the most
part came either from Constantinople or the
ports of the Crimea it is easy to see how
St. Clement became identified with those
Northern races who in England were usually
known as ; ' Danes," in France as " Normans,"
and thus came to be called "St. Clement
Danes," an expression in which it is quite
conceivable that Danes may have originally
represented an adjective. A priori the neigh-
bourhood of St. Clement Danes is hardly one
where one would have expected to find a
specifically Scandinavian colony, which,
originally at all events, must have been
mostly composed of seamen. The other
churches with Scandinavian dedications in
London viz., St. Magnus and St. Olave
are situated in the immediate neighbourhood
of the Pool, and below the oldest London
Bridge, whilst the other foreign colony in
London which dates from before the Con-
quest namely, the "Men of the Emperor"
seems to have been settled close to Dowgate,
the first port of London, near the site of the
present Cannon Street Station. After the
experiences of the Danish massacre of 1002,
no Danish colony of Canute's day would have
cared to be cut off from the road to the sea
by London Bridge, which had defeated
all the efforts of Sweyn to pass it in 1014.
Clapham and other settlements with Danish
names near London usually occupy easily
defensible positions, which were cut off from
Saxon London and Westminster by the broad
reaches of the marshes which then filled the
low grounds of Southwark and Lambeth,
whilst it would be hard to find the specifically
Danish termination of -wick in any place-
name of the Thames Valley above London
Bridge, though below it we have Greenm'cA,
"Woolwich, Land Wyck, while on the lower
river Sheppe?/, Hart?/, Canvey islands cor-
respond to Battersea on the reaches above
bridge. H.
"ANYONE," "EVEEYONE" (9 th S. vii. 205 294, 358, 432). I have followed with interest the controversy arising out of my note at the first reference. MR. F. ADAMS, for the defence, omits to observe the qualification originally stated for the joinder of the words composing the compound, and therefore some of his instances do not apply. I migh 1 as well quote the phrase "Every body o the solar system," &c., against the use of thi form 'everybody," which he admits, as h< quotes " Any one of the books would suit me against the use of "anyone," which he dis
ents from. His strongest argument seems-
lie in the compound instance of " no one," vhich we already have in the language con- racted to "none." But in similar manner, >n account of the vowels, I might object to- uch a word as "re-elect," which if un- lyphened would be unrecognizable. If " no- >ne," thus thrown in, must follow suit to-
anyone," then the hyphen or diaeresis will lave to be employed in it. It, however, may >e looked upon simply as a red-herring drawn icross the trail because nobody uses it. dictionaries are no criterion in a case of this dnd. They copy from each other, and are proverbially behind the times. As surely as night follows day, what they now ignore
hey will ultimately adopt in two or three decades, or maybe half a century later, when
hey wake up. Lately I have particularly noticed the present use of the words in the-
leading, and in none of the frequent instances observed (in book, newspaper, magazine, &c.) lave I seen them divided. Nothing weightier can be advanced in favour of the form noted
ban the assistance it gives to the reader in gathering the sense, except it be that in
peaking each compound is pronounced as if it were one word. J. S. McTEAR.
MR. ADAMS says the phrase "any one particle" need not be regarded, being pleo- nastic for "any particle." If he turns again to the ' H.E.D.' he will find that of the seven instances of the phrase "any one" there cited five are similarly pleonastic. I main- tain that in the remaining two instances, where the phrase is simply equivalent to- "anybody," it would be more convenient to- write it as one word. The pleonasm MR. ADAMS objects to cannot be disregarded : everyone uses it, and it is often necessary to make one's meaning clear.
MR. ADAMS also says that the editors of the 'H.E.D.' agree with him. He can only mean that they print "any one" as two- words, as is admittedly customary. For the rest, they simply record past and present usage. It is not their province to say how words should be written, but how they are- written ; and as the original query was why this particular phrase is written as two- words, MR. ADAMS'S remark is, I think, rather pointless. The practice I contend for is, however, growing only this morning I came across " someone " in the Academy and
1 venture to say that it will grow, in spite of MR. ADAMS'S objections, which are too tech- nical for practical people. C. C. B.
P.S.My note was written without refer- ence to authorities, but if these are to be
