said "I think it is." Throughout the rest of my argument I think the
terms made use of are perfectly allowable as expressions of opinion.
Your correspondent has been good enough to give "the whole" of my
"argument" in recapitulating my "assertions." Singular dogmatism that
in laying down the law should condescend to give reasons for it! On
the other hand, when I turn to the letter of my friendly censor, I
find assertion without argument, which, to my simple apprehension,
is of much nearer kin to dogmatism than is the sin with which I am
charged.

I cannot help thinking that your correspondent, from his dislike "to
be puzzled on so plain a subject," has a misapprehension as to the
uses of etymology. I, too, am no etymologist; I am a simple inquirer,
anxious for information; frequently, without doubt, "most ignorant"
of what I am "most assured;" yet I feel that to treat the subject
scientifically it is not enough to guess at the origin of a word, not
enough even to know it; that it is important to know not only whence
it came, but how it came, what were its relations, by what road it
travelled; and treated thus, etymology is of importance, as a branch
of a larger science, to the history of the progress of the human race.

Descending now to particulars, let your correspondent show me how
"news" was made out of "new." I have shown him how _I think_ it was
made; but I am open to conviction.

I repeat my opinion that "news is a noun singular, and as such must
have been adopted bodily into the language;" and if it were a "noun
of plural form and plural meaning," I still think that the singular
form must have preceded it. The two instances CH. gives, "goods" and
"riches," are more in point than he appears to suppose, although in