THE 
VETERINARIAN. 
VOL. XXIV, 
No. 278. 
FEBRUARY 1851. 
Third Series, 
No. 38. 
LAMENESS IN HORSES. 
By William Percivall, M.R.C.S. and V.S. 
[Continued from page 5.] 
Frush. 
Etymology, supported by primitive* and the best modern f 
usage, is my authority for giving this orthography to what is, 
in these our days, commonly spelt thrush. Custom may be 
urged as a forcible reason for even continuing in literal error, 
and it is at all times an awkward power to make war against ; 
at the same time, I think it behoves us to rid our nomenclature 
of as much of the false orthography which has crept into it as 
possible, and particularly when we come to be warned of such 
error by our own lexicographers The derivation of the word 
frush is a matter which has been so learnedly discussed by 
Bracy Clark, in his “ Essay on Running Frush,” that I shall 
avail myself of the opportunity on the present occasion, since 
it appears a question of some importance to settle, of translating 
the passage treating thereon into these pages: — 
“ The term Frush is originally derived from the Latin Furca , 
signifying a fork ; and probably more immediately to us from 
the French word Fourche , also signifying the same thing; and 
its derivative, Fourchetle, is the appellation, in this language, 
of the frog at this day. Hence formerly we obtained Running 
Fourche, and by an easy transition Running Frush, which 
word actually occurs in our English writers, as in Blundeville 
and De Grey, and others, and is therefore the true word.” 
Frush is so NOTORIOUS, that any horseman would risk 
being accused of unpardonable ignorance who should confess 
to any lack of knowledge concerning it ; and yet, as a vete- 
* Blundeville, De Grey, Solleyscl, &c. f Bracy Clark. 
\ Richardson’s New Dictionary of the English Language. 
VOL. XXIV. K 
