138 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 39. 



the King's hall ?" For his respondent recounts to 

 him the history of a quarrel, concerniun; which mes- 

 senuers had just arrived with a challenge. 



Whether the Norman word noas acquired in 

 time a wider range of signification, and becaiue the 

 English neics^ I cannot say ; but stranger changes 

 have occurred. Under our Norman kings bacons 

 signified dried wood, and hosehaunde a husband- 

 man, then a term of contempt. B.AV. 



"news," "noise," and "parliament." 



1. News. — I regret that Mr. IIickson perseveres 

 in his extravagant notion about neivs, and that the 

 learning and ingenuity which your correspondent 

 P. C. S. S., I have no doubt justly, gives him credit 

 for, should be so tmworthily employed. 



Does Mr. Hickson really " very much doubt 

 whether our word news contains the idea of new at 

 all?" ^Vhat then has it got to do with neues? 



Docs Mr. Hickson's mind, " in its ordinary 

 mechanical action," really think that the entry of 

 " old newes, or stale newes" in an old dictionary is 

 any proof of ?)e!f's having nothing to do with neio ? 

 Does he then separate health from heal and hale, 

 because we speak of " bad health " and " ill 

 health"? 



Will Mr. Hickson explain why news may not 

 be treated as an elliptical expression for new things, 

 as well as greens for green vegetables, and odds for 

 odd chances ? 



"When Mr. Hickson says dogmatice, " For the 

 adoption of words we have no rule, and we act 

 just as our convenience or necessity dictates ; but 

 in their formation we must strictly conform to the 

 laws we find established," — does he deliberately 

 mean to say that there are no exceptions and ano- 

 malies in the formation of language, except imjior- 

 tations of foreign words ? If he means this, I 

 should like to hear some reasons for this wonderful 

 simplification of grammar. 



Why may not "convenience or necessity" some- 

 times lead us to swerve from the ordinary rules of 

 the formation of language, as well as to import 

 words bodily, and, according to Mr. Htckson's 

 views of the origin of news, without reference to 

 context, meaning, part of speech, or anything 

 ehe ? 



Why may we not have the liberty of forming a 

 plural noun news from the adjective nev), though 

 we have never used the singular new as a noun, 

 when the French have indulged themselves with 

 the plural noun of adjective formation, les noncelles, 

 without feeling tliemselves compelled to make une 

 nouvelle a part of their language ? 



Wlij' may we not form a ])lural noun 7iews from 

 new, to express the same idea which in Latin is 

 expressed by 7iova, and in French by les nouvellcs ? 



Why may not goods be a plural noun formed 

 from the adjective good, exactly as the llomans 

 formed bona and the Germans have formed Giiterf 



Why does SIb. Hickson compel us to ti'eat goods 

 as singular, and make us go back to the Gothic ? 

 Does he say that die Giiter, the German for goods 

 or possessions, is singular ? Why too must riches 

 be singular, and be the French word richesse im- 

 ported into our language ? AVhy may we not have 

 a plural noun ric/ies, as the Romans had dioitice, 

 and the Germans iiavc die lieichthiimer ? and what 

 if ?-iches be irregularly formed from the adjective 

 rich ? Are there, Mr. Hickson, no irregularities 

 ill the formation of a language? Is this really so? 



If "from convenience or necessity" words are 

 and may be imported from foreign languages bodily 

 into our own, why might not our forefathers, feel- 

 ing the convenience or necessity of having words 

 corresponding to bona, nova, divitia, have formed 

 goods, news, riches, fjoui good, new, rich f 



News must be singular, says jMr. Hickson ; 

 but means " is beyond all dispute plural," for 

 Shakspeare talks of " a mean : " with news, how- 

 ever, " there is the slight difliculty of the absence 

 of the noun neic to start from." AYhy is the ab- 

 sence of the singular an insuperable difficulty in 

 the way of the formation of a plural noun from an 

 adjective, any more than of plural nouns otherwise 

 formed, which have no singulars, as clothes, measles, 

 alms, &c. A\'liat says Mr. Hickson of these 

 words ? Are they all singular nouns and imported 

 from other languages? for he admits no other ii'- 

 regularity in the formation of a language. 



2. Noise. — I agree with Mr. Hickson that the 

 old derivations of noise are unsatisfactory, but I 

 continue to think his monstrous. I fear we cannot 

 decide in your columns which of us has the right 

 German pronunciation of ncnes ; and I am sorry 

 to find that you, Mr. Editor, are with Mr. Hick- 

 son in giving to the German eu the exact sound of 

 oi in noise. I remain unconvinced, and shall con- 

 tinue to pronounce the eu with less fullness than 

 oi in noise. However, this is a small matter, and 

 I am quite content with Mr. Hickson to waive it. 

 The derivation appears to me nonsensical, and I 

 cannot but think would appear so to any one who 

 was not bitten by a fancy. 



I do not profess, as I said before, to give the 

 root of noise. But it is probably the same as of 

 noisome, annoy, the French mure, Latin nocere, 

 which brings us again to noxa ; and the French 

 word 7ioise has probably the same root, though its 

 specific meaning is difierent from that of our word 

 noise. "Without venturing to assert it dogmati- 

 cally, I should expect the now usual meaning of 

 7ioise to be its primary meaning, viz. " a loud 

 sound" or "disturbance;" and this accords with 

 my notion of its alliances. The French word 

 b7-idt has both the meanings of our word 7ioise ; 

 and to h-uit and to 7ioise are with us interchange- 

 able terms. The French b/-idt also has the sense 

 of a distu7-bance more definitely than our word 

 7ioise. " H y a du bruit " means " There is a row." 



