Does MR. HICKSON really "very much doubt whether our word _news_
contains the idea of _new_ at all?" What then has it got to do with
_neues_?

Does MR. HICKSON'S mind, "in its ordinary mechanical action," really
think that the entry of "old newes, or stale newes" in an old dictionary
is any proof of _news_ having nothing to do with _new_? Does he then
separate _health_ from _heal_ and _hale_, because we speak of "bad
health" and "ill health"?

Will MR. HICKSON explain why _news_ may not be treated as an elliptical
expression for _new things_, as well as _greens_ for _green vegetables_,
and _odds_ for _odd chances_?

When MR. HICKSON says _dogmaticè_, "For the adoption of words we have no
rule, and we act just as our convenience or necessity dictates; but in
their formation we _must strictly_ conform to the laws we find
established,"--does he deliberately mean to say that there are no
exceptions and anomalies in the formation of language, except
importations of foreign words? If he means this, I should like to hear
some reasons for this wonderful simplification of grammar.

Why may not "convenience or necessity" sometimes lead us to swerve from
the ordinary rules of the formulation of language, as well as to import
words bodily, and, according to MR. HICKSON'S views of the origin of
_news_, without reference to context, meaning, part of speech, or
anything else?

Why may we not have the liberty of forming a plural noun _news_ from the
adjective _new_, though we have never used the singular _new_ as a noun,