J.M.B.
REPLIES.
DERIVATION OF NEWS.
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.