I have too much respect for the readers of "NOTES AND QUERIES" to
consider it necessary to point out _seriatim_ the false conclusions
arrived at by MR. HICKSON, at page 81.
The origin of "news" may now be safely left to itself, one thing at
least being certain--that the original purpose of introducing the
subject, that of disproving its alleged derivation from the points of
the compass, is fully attained. No person has come forward to defend
_that_ derivation, and therefore I hope that the credit of expunging
such a fallacy from books of reference will hereafter be due to "NOTES
AND QUERIES".
I cannot avoid, however, calling Mr. Hickson's attention to one or two
of the most glaring of his _non-sequiturs_.
I quoted the Cardinal of York to show that in his day the word "newes"
was considered plural. MR. HICKSON quotes _me_ to show that in the
present day it is used in the singular; therefore, he thinks that the
Cardinal of York was wrong: but he must pardon me if I still consider
the Cardinal an unexceptional authority as to the usage of his own time.
MR. HICKSON asserts that "odds" is not an English word; he classifies it
as belonging to a language known by the term "slang," of which he
declares his utter disuse. And he thinks that when used at all, the word
is but an ellipsis for "_odd chances_." This was not the opinion of the
great English lexicographer, who describes the word as--
"Odds; a noun substantive, from the adjective odd."
and he defines its meaning as "inequality," or incommensurateness. He
cites many examples of its use in its various significations, with any
of which MR. HICKSON's substitution would play strange pranks; here is
one from Milton:--
"I chiefly who enjoy
So far the happier lot, enjoying thee
Pre-eminent by so much odds."
Then with respect to "noise," MR. HICKSON scouts the idea of its being
the same word with the French "noise." Here again he is at odds with
Doctor Johnson, although I doubt very much that he has the odds of him.
MR. HICKSON rejects altogether the _quasi_ mode of derivation, nor will
he allow that the same word may (even in different languages) deviate
from its original meaning. But, most unfortunately for MR. HICKSON, the
obsolete French signification of "noise" was precisely the present
English one! A French writer thus refers to it:--
"A une époque plus reculée ce mot avait un sens différent: il
signifiait _bruit, cries de joie_, &c. Joinville dit dans son
_Histoire de Louis IX_.,--'La noise que ils (les Sarrazins)
menoient de leurs cors sarrazinnoiz estoit espouvantable à
escouter.' Les Anglais nous ont emprunté cette expression et
l'emploient _dans sa première acception_."
MR. HICKSON also lays great stress upon the absence, in English, of "the
new" as a singular of "the news." In the French, however, "_la
nouvelle_" is common enough in the exact sense of news. Will he allow
nothing for the caprice of idiom?