Notes and Queries, Number 39, July 27, 1850 | Page 9

producing compound epithets and words are the treasure and ornament of the Armenian language; a thousand varieties of compounded words may be made in this tongue," p. 10. I believe we have no other grammar of this language in English.
JARLTZBERG
* * * * *
REPLIES
A TREATISE ON EQUIVOCATION.
My attention has recently been drawn to the inquiry of J.M. (Vol. i., p. 260.) respecting the work bearing this name. He inquires, "Was the book ever extant in MS. or print? What is its size, date, and extent?" These questions may in part be answered by the following extracts from Parsons's _Treatise tending to Mitigation_, 1607, to {137} which J.M. refers as containing, "perhaps, all the substance of the Roman equivocation," &c. It appears from these extracts that the treatise was circulated in MS.; that it consisted of ten chapters, and was on eight or nine sheets of paper. If Parsons' statements are true, he, who was then at Douay, or elsewhere out of England, had not seen it till three years after it was referred to publicly by Sir E. Coke, in 1604. Should the description aid in discovering the tract in any library, it may in answering J.M.'s second Query, "Is it now extant, and where?"
(Cap. i. �� iii. p. 440.):--
"To hasten then to the matter, I am first to admonish the reader, that whereas this minister doth take upon him to confute a certain Catholicke manuscript Treatise, made in defence of Equivocation, and intercepted (as it seemeth) by them, I could never yet come to the sight therof, and therfore must admit," &c.
And (p 44):--
"This Catholicke Treatise, which I have hope to see ere it be long, and if it come in time, I may chance by some appendix, to give you more notice of the particulars."
In the conclusion (cap. xiii. ��ix. p. 553.):--
"And now at this very instant having written hitherto, cometh to my handes the Catholicke Treatise itselfe of Equivocation before meneyoned," &c.... "Albeit the whole Treatise itselfe be not large, nor conteyneth above 8 or 9 sheetes of written paper."
And (�� xi. p. 554.):--
"Of ten chapters he omitteth three without mention."
I.B.
* * * * *
FURTHER NOTES ON THE DERIVATION OF THE WORD "NEWS."
I have too much respect for the readers of "NOTES AND QUERIES" to consider it necessary to point out seriatim the false conclusions arrived at by MR. HICKSON, at page 81.
The origin of "news" may now be safely left to itself, one thing at least being certain--that the original purpose of introducing the subject, that of disproving its alleged derivation from the points of the compass, is fully attained. No person has come forward to defend that derivation, and therefore I hope that the credit of expunging such a fallacy from books of reference will hereafter be due to "NOTES AND QUERIES".
I cannot avoid, however, calling Mr. Hickson's attention to one or two of the most glaring of his _non-sequiturs_.
I quoted the Cardinal of York to show that in his day the word "newes" was considered plural. MR. HICKSON quotes me to show that in the present day it is used in the singular; therefore, he thinks that the Cardinal of York was wrong: but he must pardon me if I still consider the Cardinal an unexceptional authority as to the usage of his own time.
MR. HICKSON asserts that "odds" is not an English word; he classifies it as belonging to a language known by the term "slang," of which he declares his utter disuse. And he thinks that when used at all, the word is but an ellipsis for "odd chances." This was not the opinion of the great English lexicographer, who describes the word as--
"Odds; a noun substantive, from the adjective odd."
and he defines its meaning as "inequality," or incommensurateness. He cites many examples of its use in its various significations, with any of which MR. HICKSON's substitution would play strange pranks; here is one from Milton:--
"I chiefly who enjoy So far the happier lot, enjoying thee Pre-eminent by so much odds."
Then with respect to "noise," MR. HICKSON scouts the idea of its being the same word with the French "noise." Here again he is at odds with Doctor Johnson, although I doubt very much that he has the odds of him. MR. HICKSON rejects altogether the quasi mode of derivation, nor will he allow that the same word may (even in different languages) deviate from its original meaning. But, most unfortunately for MR. HICKSON, the obsolete French signification of "noise" was precisely the present English one! A French writer thus refers to it:--
"A une ��poque plus recul��e ce mot avait un sens diff��rent: il signifiait _bruit, cries de joie_, &c. Joinville dit dans son Histoire de Louis IX.,--'La noise que ils (les Sarrazins) menoient de leurs cors sarrazinnoiz estoit espouvantable �� escouter.'