COUNTRY GENTLEMAN’S COMPANTON. 
J 
* DKCR^rBKRll. 
variably, callad chirk, and chickx (the proper pluraU. Tf 
Mr. Dixon, tbongli certainly tlie most learned writer on 
jionltry of modern days, he not anthority high enougli, let 
him consult that more erudite of English Dictionaries hy 
Hichardsou ; where he will read “ chick is applied to the 
; young of various birds.’’ 
That our woi'd, chicken, is truly Anglo-Sa.xon, there cau he 
no question. Indeed, the Anglo-Saxon word ciccn, <i 
chicken, is pi’ononnced in that tongue precisely as we pro- 
i nouuce chicken. For the initial c, especially before a soft 
i vowel, is pronounced like ch, as in the words child, and 
j chicken;—(indeed, Rask, in his Grammar, quotes the word 
i chicken, to illustrate the pronuuciation of the initial r in 
, cicen a chicken) : in other cases c is pronounced like /.-, 
; there being no letter h in the Anglo-Saxon. I state this, 
i because I laiow, that one of your excellent contrihtitors, who 
! does and wiil write chicken, instead of chickens, in The 
Ponltnj Chronicle, “till I convince him that he is wrong,” 
elaborately attempts to justify himself hy rushing into 
German ! If we will wander from the true point, we may as 
well stride over to the Rajibazook tongue at once. 
But, IMr. Tegetmeier reserves his grand peroration to the 
last: it is equally a concentration of his argument and his 
wit. I must, in justice, give his own words. He says, “ In 
the Anglo-Saxon tongue, plurals were often formed by the 
termination en. Thus we have ox, oxen ; child, chiklreu; 
j house, housen; brother, brethren; and chick, chicken, Ac., 
! A'c., Ac. If, tlierefore, we must have chickens, let us, at 
j least, be consistent in absurdity, and, like stupid mens and 
‘ womens, talk of our cluldrens and hrethrens, our oxens and 
our housens.” 
If any Anglo-Saxon scholar read the above, ho must ex¬ 
claim, with Desdemona, “ ’Tis pitiful, ’tis wondrous pitiful!” 
or, if less poetical, he may say, with an eminent literary an- 
ti(iuai'ian and Anglo-Saxon scholar, who did read the pas¬ 
sage, “ These words have as much to do with each other as 
the moon has to do with green cheese! ” 
With the rest of your readers, I have to thank Mr. Teget- 
i meier for his many valuable contributions on poirltry matters: 
few have taken more trouble, and few have done more than 
he has done. I say this with sincerity and with pleasure; 
hut with this he must rest contented; for I cannot allow that 
he has one titUc of knowledge of Anglo-Saxon. In the first 
place, there is no such word as cic, a chick {the vcrif foitiida- 
iion on which he builds) in the Anglo-Saxon language! 
Further, the words which he has cited, viz., ox, house, child, 
brethren, man, have no analogy, nothing to do, with chicken. 
Nay, more; they have no analogy with each other! being, 
most of them, not only of different genders, hut they all of 
them form tlieir plurals differently, in the Anglo-Saxon, 
and differently to chicken ! 
Thus oxu, an ox, has oxan in the plural; did, a child, has 
hut did in the plural: hut it sometimes has ci/dm; hrodor, 
a brother, has hrodra; hus, a house, has also hits in the plu¬ 
ral ; and man, a man, has men in the plural, as it is one of 
that list of irregular words in the Anglo-Saxon (there are 
hut about eight), that form the plural hy simply changing 
the vowel of the singular; that is, the a of man, into c, be¬ 
coming men, plural; whilst cicen, a chicken, has cicena, plu¬ 
ral. Surely, surely, nothing could be more unfortunate than 
tlu'se proofs that Mr! Tegetmeier has stumbled upon ! My 
object is, liowever, not to exult, hut to enlighten and con¬ 
vince. I may notice, in passing, a mistake he commits in 
English gi’ammar, by saying that the plural of brother is 
brethren; it is brothers. Brethren is not a true plural at 
all; it is rather but a collective. ( Vide Latham’s “ English 
j Language,” p. t!12.) I have already shown that cn is not, 
! as stated, a frequent plural iu Amilo-Huxon tongue: on 
! is of common occurrence, and it is usually rendered, in 
‘ Eiif/lish, en. 
1 ilaving now, I trust, “ struck out the light of truth hy this 
■ collision with -Mr. Tegetmeier,” and proved that he is utterly 
I in error, 1 must, very hrieffy, show that I am in the right, 
j It has, by some, been contended, that we may use the word 
I chicken both in the singular and the plural number, just as 
' we say sheep and deer. But, in the Anglo-Saxon, these 
! words, seco'p, a shee]>; and deor, a deer, have no plural; or 
! ratlier, it is tho same as the singular, 
i The real qncKtion, then, i^fhaH the AniilooSuxon loord dicow, 
■ a chicken, a plural,■—’U different plural termination ; or has it 
not ?—that is the’question. It has n plural, viz., cicen, n 
chicken ; e/cenu, chickens. TVe </ire it, like most other such 
words, requlnrhj formed, our own common ^filural s. There is 
no irrefinlaritii, nor peciiliariti/, in this word cicen, n chicken, in 
the Anijlo-Soxon. It forms, in that toin/iie, its plural in n 
common manner; and so do we 'jive it a plural, in our own 
hmqnaqe, in the common way. 
Tor the satisfaction of your readers—though it is like 
taking a sledge-hammer to brain a fly-—I may state, that 1 
consulted my friend, R. G. Latham, M.A., a gentleman so 
well known for his knowledge of languages, author of that 
erudite work, “ The English I.angnage,” and Professor of 
the English Language and Literature in the University 
College. And, especially, I bring forward the name of | 
Thomas TUrn//)/, M. A., of Brompton, London, one of the very | 
first literary antiquari.ans of our day, both of whom entirely 
coincide with me. The opinion of the latter gentleman I have 
already quoted, respecting the final peroration of Mr. 
Tegetmeier. 
Mr, Latham writes me, “Chick is nothing more than a 
diminutive (not the singular) of chicken, and means a very 
young chicken—it is equally ai)plied to the very young of 
different birds. 
“ Chick is singular—its plural is chicks. 
“ Chicken is undoubtedly singular—its pluiM is chickens. 
“ It never was correct to say ' two chickea.’” 
Mr. Wright concludes his observations hy saying, that 
“ Chick is a mere modern diminutive of chicken, and means 
the very young of different birds ; that chick is singular, and 
that its plural is chicks; that chicken is singular, and that its 
plural is chickens; that neither custom, nor any thiny else, has 
made, or con make, chicken into a plural." 
After such an opinion, from such a scholar as Mr. Wright, 
(the future secretary, I may add, of the Antiquarian Society) 
it would he supererogatory to dwell on further evidence. I 
will conclude, by referring to usage and old custom. Thus, 
in ^Vickliff'e’s Bible, published -’iUO years ago, we read “ As an 
henne gederith here chyckens under here wyngs.” So, also, 
in the writings of Chaucer, of Boyle, and of many others of 
the oldest and best English authors, examples occur, where 
chicken is used as the singular, and chickens in the plural. 
So, in Common jjarlance. we say. a chicken-heurted fellow, not 
(7th7i--hearted; at table we ask for the wing of a chicken, 
not for the wing of a chick ! The Poultry Chronicle, in The 
Cottayc Gardener —for the old I’oultry Chronicle repudiated 
the error—is the only publication, ancient or modern, in 
which this fantastical blunder is made. I am told it is a 
provincialism in one part of Somersetshire. But enough; it 
must be seen, that hy origin, hy grammar, by ancient and by 
modern usage, we ought to write (and I specially beg and 
entreat in the Poultry Chronicle) chick, chicks; and chicken, 
chickens. 
I have endeavoured to Avrite as mildly as possible, hut, if 
any one of my gentle readers fancy that I have not ahvays 
acted up to my’ wishes, my defence shall be, to request him 
to cogitate how he would reply to any one who should 
gravely contend with him that the moon is made of green 
cheese ! Would he be milder than I have been ?—J. R. 
HoKxnn, M.D., Hull. 
LONDON MARKETS.—Dkckmbee lOxu. 
COVENT GARDEN. 
The supply of most articles, both Home Grown and Foreign, is now 
ample for the demand ; indeed, prices have a rather downward tendency, ‘ 
especially in Potatoes, Cobbs, and Filberts, the holders of the latter 
article being anxious to effect sales. Hamburgh Crapes arc now done | 
for this season ; Spanish and Portugal scarce. 
FRUIT. 
Raspberries . 
Apples, kitchen, per 
Strawberries,per pottle 
bushel. 
2s. 
to ts. 
Oranges, per 100 .... 
4s. 
,, lOS. 
,, dessert .... 
43. 
,, tis. 
Lemons .. 
(Is. 
„ 12s. 
Pears . 
43. 
,, 8s. 
Almonds, per lb. 
2s. 
Peaches, per doz. 
58. 
,, 8s. 
Nuts, Filberts, jicr 
Nectarines, per doz... 
— 
100 lbs. 
50s. 
,, 60s. 
Plums, per sieve .... 
48. 
,, as. 
,, Cobs, ditto .. 
tiOs. 
,, /Os. 
Pine-apples, per lb. .. 
48, 
„ (is. 
,, Rarcclona,pcr 
Grapes, per lb . 
Is, 
,, tis. 
bushel ... 
50s. 
,, 22s, 
Foreign hlelons, each 
2s. 
1, 4s. 
Nuts, Brazil, per 
Fig» . 
— 
bushel . 
12s. 
„ i4s, 
Oooseborries, per (jt. 
Walnuts, per 1000 ,. 
gs. 
.. )2S. 
Currants ........ 
CheetnuU .....i..., 
.. . > 
-r— 
