16 SEPTEMBER 1995, Page 31

Tit for that

Sir: Kingsley Amis is right (Letters, 9 September) to scorn those who can't han- dle a naughty sound, even when it appears only as a syllable of a longer word with quite other connotations. And perhaps there are people who are grateful to find there is a word 'tidbit' that they can use instead of 'titbit'. But 'tidbit' came first. The OED is clear that it is an earlier form (possibly, though not certainly, deriving from `tid', an obsolete word for 'tender') and gives a usage dated 1640 as against 1694 for 'titbit'.

Kit McMahon

The Old House, Burleigh Lane, Minchinhampton, Nr Stroud