I have given not only all of 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 [Greek: neos], Gr.; _norus_, Lat.; _neuf_, Fr., &c.; 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
account for its having come to be used as a singular noun ("riches," by
the way, may be prefixed sometimes to a singular verb, as "riches is a
cause of corruption"); that Mr. HICKSON might as well say that "goods"
is derived immediately from "gutes," 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. HICKSON'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 translated "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 though coming from
one so entitled to attention as "Mr. HICKSON."