May 25. 1850.] 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
487 
I give you the following as a warning to all dis- 
honest bell-founders. 
The pious builder of a church being desirous, 
according to custom, of putting a bell in the tur- 
ret, engaged a skilful craftsman to carry into effect 
his design. This man, “at the instigation of the 
devil,” stole some of the metal with which he had 
been furnished for the work ; and the bell was, in 
consequence, mis-shapen and of small size. It 
was, however, placed in the turret; but, as a 
divine punishment for his crime, whenever the bell 
was struck, the dishonest founder was thereupon 
seized with frenzy, uttering strange words and 
barking like a dog! GasTROos. 
Se SaEEEnieeeamemmmena 
ORIGIN OF THE WORD “NEWS.” 
Thave great respect for “ Mr. Samurn Hickson,” 
but I cannot treat his derivation of the word 
“News” with any respect (No. 27. p. 428.). I 
wish “Mr. Hicxson” had been a little more 
modest in his manner of propounding his novelty. 
Can any thing be more dogmatic than his asser- 
tions ? which I will recapitulate as much as pos- 
sible in his own words, before I proceed to deal 
with them. 
1. “I have never had the least doubt that this 
word is derived immediately from the German.” 
2. “It is, in fact, ‘das Neue’ in the genitive 
case;” and “Mr. H.” proceeds to mention the 
German phrase, “ Was giebt’s Neues?” as giving 
the exact sense of our “ What is the news?” 
{which cannot be gainsaid; but I shall have a word 
to say presently about neues in that phrase being 
the genitive case. ] 
3. “That the word is not derived from the 
English adjective ‘ new,’—that it is not of Eng- 
lish manufacture at all —I feel well assured.” 
_“JIn thatcase the ‘s’ would be the sign of the 
plural ; and we should have, as the Germans have, 
either extant or obsolete, also ‘the new.’” [I do 
not see the sequitur. ] 
5 “ ‘News’ is anoun singular, and as such must 
have been adopted bodily into the language.” 
Such are “ Mr, Hickson’s” principal assertions : 
and when I add, that he has found out that the 
German “neu” was in olden time spelt “new,” so 
that the genitive, “ newes,” was identical with the 
old form of the English word “ news,” and that 
he explains the transformation of a genitive case 
of a German adjective into an English substantive 
by English ignorance, which he further thinks is 
exemplified by the Koran having been called “the 
Alkoran,” in ignorance of “ Ad” meaning “ the,” 
T have given not only all his assertions, but also 
the whole of his argument. 
I now proceed to assert on my part that the 
word “news” is not “derived immediately from 
the German,” and “has not been adopted bodily 
into our language ;” that the English “ new” and 
German “neu” have, however, of course the same 
origin, their common root being widely spread in 
other languages, as véos, Gr.; novus, Lat.; neuf, 
Fr., &e.; that “news” is a noun of plural form 
and plural meaning, like goods, riches, &c. ; that its 
peculiar and frequent use is quite sufficient to ac- 
count for its having come to be used as a singu- 
lar noun (“riches,” by the way, may be prefixed 
sometimes toa singular verb, as “riches is a cause 
of corruption”) ; that “Mr. Hickson might as 
well say that “ goods” is derived immediately from 
“‘outes,” the genitive of “gut;” and “riches” from 
“reiches,” the genitive of “reich:” and also that if 
“s” in “ goods,” and “es” in “riches” are signs of 
the plural, “ we should have, as the Germans have, 
either extant or obsolete,” the “ good,” “ the rich,” 
(not that I quite understand this part of “Mr. 
Hicxson’s” argument): and, lastly, I assert that 
I believe that Neues, in the phrase “Was giebt’s 
Neues?” is not the genitive, but the nominative 
neuter, so that the phrase is to be literally trans- 
lated “ What is there new ?” 
As regards the derivation of “News,” I wish 
you had allowed the question to rest as it stood 
after the sensible remarks of “ A. E. B.” (No. 23. 
p. 369.). Pray excuse me, Sir, for expressing 
a hope that you will ponder well before you again 
allow us to be puzzled on so plain a subject, and 
give circulation and your sanction to paradoxes, 
even thouch coming from one so entitled to atten- 
tion as “ Mr. Hickson.” 
The early communication between the English 
and German languages, of which “ Mr. Hickson” 
puts forward the derivation of “news” from “neues” 
as an instance, may be an interesting and profit- 
able subject of inquiry ; but as I think he has been 
singularly unfortunate in the one instance, so I do 
not think him particularly happy in his other. I 
see no further resemblance between Heywood’s 
“Song in praise of his Mistress,” and the early 
German poem, than what might arise from treat- 
ment of the same and a very common subject. 
T am not enough of an etymologist to give you 
the root of the word “noise.” But my faith in 
“Mr. Hicxson” in this capacity is not strong 
enough to lead me to believe, on his dictum, that 
“news” and “noise” are the same word; and 
when, pursuing his fancy about “neues,” he goes 
on to say that “noise” is “from a dialect from 
which the modern German pronunciation of the 
diphthong is derived,” I fear his pronunciation of 
German is faulty, if he pronounces eu in “ Neues” 
like o7 in “noise.” * 
I beg to repeat that for “ Mr. Hicxson” I feel 
great respect. If he knew my name, he would 
probably know nothing about me; but I happen 
* We differ from our correspondent on this point, and 
think that here, at all events, Mr. Hickson has the 
advantage of the argument. 
