And no monk, no nun, no saint, no sin, at least not in the latest edition of the Oxford Junior Dictionary. These words, among several others, have been dropped in favour of more modish additions such as "allergy" and "celebrity". Given that the dictionary is meant for children aged seven, one's first thought is simply to register mild bewilderment. Are we so familar with such words that we don't need to define them, or are they now so far removed from everyday experience that definitions are redundant? (Given how often "altar" is misspelled "alter" even by adults, one could make a case for retaining the distinction.) A lot of animals and flowers have been dropped also, which may cause heartache among naturalists who must be wondering whether children of today are ignorant of catkins and cowslips, magpies and minnows (all deleted words), although there is still apparently a need for "dinosaur". Language is constantly changing and any dictionary revision will provoke disagreement. The dropping of so many Christian words, however, suggests an impovershed understanding of the cultural matrix in which English was formed. Like it or not, the language of Bible and Prayer Book has helped make English what it is. Should we worry, though? I have a divided mind on the subject. After all, how many seven-year olds will turn to the Junior Oxford rather than the internet when they want to know the meaning of something?