I have no wish to prolong the controversy on this word, in which I feel
I, at least, have had my share. I beg room, however, for an observation
on one or two very pertinent remarks by Mr. Singer.
In the course of this argument I have seen that if _news_ were
originally a plural noun, it might be taken for an ellipsis of
_new-tidings_. My objection to this would be twofold. First, that the
adjective _new_ is of too common use, and, at the same time, too general
and vague to form an ellipsis intelligible on its first application;
and, secondly, that the ellipsis formed of _new-tidings_ would be found
to express no more than _tidings_, still requiring the _new_, if the
idea of _new_ were required, as in the instance Mr. Singer cites of _new
newes_.
I would not pretend to determine whether the word were taken from the
High German or the Dutch; but Mr. Singer's remark, that our language has
derived scarcely anything from the former, brings back the question to
the point from which I originally started. That there was a political
and commercial connexion between the two countries, I suppose there can
be no doubt and such, I imagine, never existed without leaving its marks
on languages so near akin.
Taking up Bailey's _Dictionary_ by accident a day or two ago, I turned
to the word, which I there find as derived from Newes, _Teut_.; Bailey
using the term _Teutonic_ for German.
I think I shall express the feelings of the majority of your readers in
saying that nothing could be more acceptable or valuable to the
consideration of any etymological question than the remarks of Mr.
Singer.
Samuel Hickson.
I have read with much interest the respective theories of the derivation
of _news_, and it seems to me that Mr. Hickson's opinion must give way
to an excellent authority in questions of this kind, Dr. Latham, who
says,
Some say, _this news_ IS good in which case the word is
singular. More rarely we find the expression, _these news_ ARE
good; in which case the word "news" is plural. In the word
"news", the -_s_ (unlike the -_s_ in _alms_ and _riches_) is no
part of the original singular, but the sign of the plural, like
the -_s_ in "trees." Notwithstanding this, we cannot subtract
the _s_, and say "new," in the same way that we _can_ form
"tree" from "trees." Hence the word "news" is, in respect to its
original form, plural; in respect to its meaning, either
singular or plural, most frequently the former.--_Eng.
Grammar_, p. 62.
The above extract will probably suffice to show the true state of the
case, and for information on similar points I would refer your readers
to the work from which the above extract is taken, and also to that on
_The English Language_, by the same author.