rivation of "news" from "Neues," and
the similarity between two poems. The first I adduced as an instance
of the importance of the inquiry: with regard to the second, I
admitted all that your correspondent now says; but with the remark,
that the mode of treatment and the measure approaching so near to each
other in England and Germany within one half century (and, I may add,
at no other period in either of the two nations is the same mode or
measure to be found), there was reasonable ground for suspicion
of direct or indirect communication. On this subject I asked for
information.

In conclusion, I think I observe something of a sarcastic tone in
reference to my "novelty." I shall advocate nothing that I do not
believe to be true, "whether it be old or new;" but I have found that
our authorities are sometimes careless, sometimes unfaithful, and
are so given to run in a groove, that when I am in quest of truth I
generally discard them altogether, and explore, however laboriously,
by myself.

SAMUEL HICKSON.

St. John's Wood, May 27. 1850.

I do not know the reason for the rule your correspondent Mr. S.
HICKSON lays down, that such a noun as "news" could not be formed
according to English analogy. Why not as well as "goods, the shallows,
blacks, for mourning, greens?" There is no singular to any of these as
nouns.

_Noise_ is a French word, upon which Menage has an article. There can
be no doubt that he and others whom he quotes are right, that it
is derived from _noxa_ or _noxia_ in Latin, meaning "strife." They
quote:--

"Saepe in conjugiis fit noxia, cum nimia est dos."

_Ausonius_.

"In mediam noxiam perfertur."

_Petronius_.

"Diligerent alia, et noxas bellumque moverent."

_Manilius_.

It is a great pity that we have no book of reference for English
analogy of language.

C.B.

Why should Mr. Hickson (Vol. i., p. 428.) attempt to derive
"news" indirectly from a German adjective, when it is so directly
attributable to an English one; and that too without departing from a
practice almost indigenous in the language?

Have we not in English many similar adjective substantives? Are we
not continually slipping into our _shorts_, or sporting our _tights_,
or parading our _heavies_, or counter-marching our _lights_, or
commiserating _blacks_, or leaving _whites_ to starve; or calculating
the _odds_, or making _expositions_ for _goods_?

Oh! but, says Mr. Hickson, "in that case the '_s_' wou