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, when the French have indulged themselves with the plural noun of adjective formation, _les nouvelles_, without feeling themselves compelled to make _une nouvelle_ a part of their language? Why may we not form a plural noun _news_ from _new_, to express the same idea which in Latin is expressed by _nova_, and in French by _les nouvelles_? Why may not goods be a plural noun formed from the adjective _good_, exactly as the Romans formed _bona_ and the Germans have formed _Güter_? Why does MR. HICKSON compel us to treat goods as singular, and make us go back to the Gothic? Does he say that _die Güter_, the German for _goods_ or _possessions_, is singular? Why too must riches be singular, and be the French word _richesse_ imported into our language? Why may we not have a plural noun _riches_, as the Romans had _divitæ_, and the Germans have _die Reichthumer_? and what if _riches_ be irregularly formed from the adjective _rich_? Are there, MR. HICKSON, no irregularities in the formation of a language? Is this really so? If "from convenience or necessity" words are and may be imported from foreign languages bodily into our own, why might not our forefathers, feeling the convenience or necessity of having words corresponding to _bona_, _nova_, _divitiæ_, have formed _goods_, _news_, _riches_, from _good_, _new_, _rich_?