the way of the formation of a plural noun from an adjective, any more
than of plural nouns otherwise formed, which have no singulars, as
_clothes_, _measles_, _alms_, &c. What says MR. HICKSON of these words?
Are they all singular nouns and imported from other languages? for he
admits no other irregularity in the formation of a language.

2. _Noise._--I agree with MR. HICKSON that the old derivations of
_noise_ are unsatisfactory, but I continue to think his monstrous. I
fear we cannot decide in your columns which of us has the right German
pronunciation of _neues_; and I am sorry to find that you, Mr. Editor,
are with MR. HICKSON in giving to the German _eu_ the exact sound of
_oi_ in _noise_. I remain unconvinced, and shall continue to pronounce
the _eu_ with less fullness than _oi_ in _noise_. However, this is a
small matter, and I am quite content with MR. HICKSON to waive it. The
derivation appears to me nonsensical, and I cannot but think would
appear so to any one who was not bitten by a fancy.

I do not profess, as I said before, to give the root of _noise_. But it
is probably the same as of _noisome_, _annoy,_ the French _nuire_, Latin
_nocere_, which brings us again to _noxa_; and the French word _noise_
has probably the same root, though its specific meaning is different
from that of our word _noise_. Without venturing to assert it
dogmatically, I should expect the now usual meaning of _noise_ to be its
primary meaning, viz. "a loud sound" or "disturbance;" and this accords
with my notion of its alliances. The French word _bruit_ has both the
meanings of our word _noise_; and _to bruit_ and _to noise_ are with us
interchangeable terms. The French _bruit_ also has the sense of _a
disturbance_ more definitely than our word _noise_. "Il y a du bruit"
means "There is a row." {139} I mention _bruit_ and its meanings merely
as a parallel case to _noise_, if it be, as I think, that "a loud sound"