OBSERVATIONS ON RULE XXI.
OBS. 1.—On this rule of syntax, Dr. Adam remarks, "Adverbs sometimes likewise qualify substantives;" and gives Latin examples of the following import: "Homer plainly an orator:"—"Truly Metellus;"—"To-morrow morning." But this doctrine is not well proved by such imperfect phrases, nor can it ever be very consistently admitted, because it destroys the characteristic difference between an adjective and an adverb. To-morrow is here an adjective; and as for truly and plainly, they are not such words as can make sense with nouns. I therefore imagine the phrases to be elliptical: "Verè Metellus," may mean, "This is truly Metellus;" and "Homerus planè orator," "Homer was plainly an orator." So, in the example, "Behold an Israelite indeed," the true construction seems to be, "Behold, here is indeed an Israelite;" for, in the Greek or Latin, the word Israelite is a nominative, thus: "Ecce verè Israëlita."—Beza; also Montanus. "[Greek: Ide alæthos 'Israaelitæs.]"—Greek Testament. Behold appears to be here an interjection, like Ecce. If we make it a transitive verb, the reading should be, "Behold a true Israelite;" for the text does not mean, "Behold indeed an Israelite." At least, this is not the meaning in our version. W. H. Wells, citing as authorities for the doctrine, "Bullions, Allen and Cornwell, Brace, Butler, and Webber," has the following remark: "There are, however, certain forms of expression in which adverbs bear a special relation to nouns or pronouns; as, 'Behold I, even I, do bring a flood of waters.'—Gen. 6: 17. 'For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power.'—1 Thes. 1: 5."—Wells's School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 156; late Ed., 168. And again, in his Punctuation, we find this: "When, however, the intervening word is an adverb, the comma is more commonly omitted; as, 'It is labor only which gives a relish to pleasure.'"—Ib., p. 176. From all this, the doctrine receives no better support than from Adam's suggestion above considered. The word "only" is often an adjective, and wherever its "special relation" is to a noun or a pronoun, it can be nothing else. "Even," when it introduces a word repeated with emphasis, is a conjunction.
OBS. 2.—When participles become nouns, their adverbs are not unfrequently left standing with them in their original relation; as, "For the fall and rising again of many in Israel."—Luke, ii, 34. "To denote the carrying forward of the action."—Barnard's Gram., p. 52. But in instances like these, the hyphen seems to be necessary. This mark would make the terms rising-again and carrying-forward compound nouns, and not participial nouns with adverbs relating to them.
"There is no flying hence, nor tarrying here."—Shak., Macbeth.
"What! in ill thoughts again? men must endure
Their going hence, ev'n as their coming hither."—Id.
OBS. 3.—Whenever any of those words which are commonly used adverbially, are made to relate directly to nouns or pronouns, they must be reckoned adjectives, and parsed by Rule 9th. Examples: "The above verbs."—Dr. Adam. "To the above remarks."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 318. "The above instance."—Ib., p. 442. "After the above partial illustration."—Dr. Murray's Hist. of Lang., ii, 62. "The above explanation."—Cobbett's Gram., ¶ 22. "For very age."—Zech., viii, 4. "From its very greatness."—Phil. Museum, i, 431. "In his then situation."—Johnson's Life of Goldsmith. "This was the then state of Popery."—Id., Life of Dryden, p. 185. "The servant becomes the master of his once master."—Shillitoe. "Time when is put in the ablative, time how long is put in the accusative."—Adam's Lat. Gram., p. 201; Gould's, 198. "Nouns signifying the time when or how long, may be put in the objective case without a preposition."—Wilbur and Livingston's Gram., p. 24. "I hear the far-off curfew sound."—Milton. "Far on the thither side."—Book of Thoughts, p. 58. "My hither way."—"Since my here remain in England."—Shak. "But short and seldom truce."—Fell. "An exceeding knave."—Pope. "According to my sometime promise."—Zenobia, i, 176. "Thine often infirmities."—Bible. "A far country."—Ib. "No wine,"—"No new thing,"—"No greater joy."—Ib. "Nothing else."—Blair. "Tomorrow noon."—Scott. "Calamity enough."—Tr. Sallust. "For thou only art holy."—Rev., xv, 4.
OBS. 4.—It is not my design to justify any uncouth substitution of adverbs for adjectives; nor do I affirm that all the foregoing examples are indisputably good English, though most of them are so; but merely, that the words, when they are thus used, are adjectives, and not adverbs. Lindley Murray, and his copyists, strongly condemn some of these expressions, and, by implication, most or all of them; but both he and they, as well as others, have repeatedly employed at least one of the very models they censure. They are too severe on all those which they specify. Their objections stand thus; "Such expressions as the following, though not destitute of authority, are very inelegant, and do not suit the idiom of our language; 'The then ministry,' for, 'the ministry of that time;' 'The above discourse,' for, 'the preceding discourse.'"—Murray's Gram., i, p. 198; Crombie's, 294; Ingersoll's, 206. "The following phrases are also exceptionable: 'The then ministry;' 'The above argument.'"—Kirkham's Gram., p. 190. "Adverbs used as adjectives, as, 'The above statement;' 'The then administration;' should be avoided."—Barnard's Gram., p. 285. "When and then must not be used for nouns and pronouns; thus, 'Since when,' 'since then,' 'the then ministry,' ought to be, 'Since which time,' 'since that time,' 'the ministry of that period.'"—Hiley's Gram., p. 96. Dr. Priestley, from whom Murray derived many of his critical remarks, noticed these expressions; and, (as I suppose,) approvingly; thus, "Adverbs are often put for adjectives, agreeably to the idiom of the Greek tongue: [as,] 'The action was amiss.'—'The then ministry.'—'The idea is alike in both.'—Addison. 'The above discourse.'—Harris."—Priestley's Gram., p. 135. Dr. Johnson, as may be seen above, thought it not amiss to use then as Priestley here cites it; and for such a use of above, we may quote the objectors themselves: "To support the above construction."—Murray's Gram., i, p. 149; Ingersoll's, p. 238. "In all the above instances."—Mur., p. 202; Ing., 230. "To the above rule."—Mur., p. 270; Ing., 283. "The same as the above."—Mur., p. 66; Ing., 46. "In such instances as the above."—Mur., p. 24; Ing., 9; Kirkham, 23.[427]
OBS. 5.—When words of an adverbial character are used after the manner of nouns, they must be parsed as nouns, and not as adverbs; as, "The Son of God—was not yea and nay, but in him was yea."—Bible. "For a great while to come."—Ib. "On this perhaps, this peradventure infamous for lies."—Young. "From the extremest upward of thine head."—Shak. "There are upwards of fifteen millions of inhabitants."—Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 266. "Information has been derived from upwards of two hundred volumes."—Worcester's Hist., p. v. "An eternal now does always last"—Cowley. "Discourse requires an animated no."—Cowper. "Their hearts no proud hereafter swelled."—Sprague. An adverb after a preposition is used substantively, and governed by the preposition; though perhaps it is not necessary to call it a common noun: as, "For upwards of thirteen years."—Hiley's Gram., p. xvi. "That thou mayst curse me them from thence."—Numb., xxiii, 27. "Yet for once we'll try."—Dr. Franklin. But many take such terms together, calling them "adverbial phrases." Allen says, "Two adverbs sometimes come together; as, 'Thou hast kept the good wine until now.'"—Gram., p. 174. But until is here more properly a preposition, governing now.
OBS. 6.—It is plain, that when words of an adverbial form are used either adjectively or substantively, they cannot be parsed by the foregoing rule, or explained as having the ordinary relation of adverbs; and if the unusual relation or character which they thus assume, be not thought sufficient to fix them in the rank of adjectives or nouns, the parser may describe them as adverbs used adjectively, or substantively, and apply the rule which their assumed construction requires. But let it be remembered, that adverbs, as such, neither relate to nouns, nor assume the nature of cases: but express the time, place, degree, or manner, of actions or qualities. In some instances in which their construction may seem not to be reconcilable with the common rule, there may be supposed an ellipsis of a verb or a participle:[428] as, "From Monday to Saturday inclusively."—Webster's Dict. Here, the Doctor ought to have used a comma after Saturday; for the adverb relates, not to that noun, but to the word reckoned, understood. "It was well said by Roscommon, 'too faithfully is pedantically.'"—Com. Sch. Journal, i, 167. This saying I suppose to mean, "To do a thing too faithfully, is, to do it pedantically." "And, [I say] truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned."—Heb., xi, 15.
OBS 7.—To abbreviate expressions, and give them vivacity, verbs of self-motion (such as go, come, rise, get, &c.) are sometimes suppressed, being suggested to the mind by an emphatic adverb, which seems to be put for the verb, but does in fact relate to it understood; as,
"I'll hence to London, on a serious matter."—Shak. Supply "go."
"I'll in. I'll in. Follow your friend's counsel. I'll in"—Id.
Supply "get."
"Away, old man; give me thy hand; away."—Id. Supply "come."
"Love hath wings, and will away"—Waller. Supply "fly."
"Up, up, Glentarkin! rouse thee, ho!"—Scott. Supply "spring."
"Henry the Fifth is crowned; up, vanity!" Supply "stand."
"Down, royal state! all you sage counsellors, hence!"—Shak. Supply "fall," and "get you."
"But up, and enter now into full bliss."—Milton. Supply "rise."
OBS. 8.—We have, on some occasions, a singular way of expressing a transitive action imperatively, or emphatically, by adding the preposition with to an adverb of direction; as, up with it, down with it, in with it, out with it, over with it, away with it, and the like; in which construction, the adverb seems to be used elliptically as above, though the insertion of the verb would totally enervate or greatly alter the expression. Examples: "She up with her fist, and took him on the face."—Sydney, in Joh. Dictionary. "Away with him!"—Acts, xxi, 36. "Away with such a fellow from the earth."—Ib., xxii, 22. "The calling of assemblies I cannot away with"—Isaiah, i, 13. "Hence with denial vain, and coy excuse."—Milton's Comus. Ingersoll says, "Sometimes a whole phrase is used as an interjection, and we call such interjectional phrases: as, out upon him!—away with him!—Alas, what wonder! &c."—Conversations on Gram., p. 79. This method of lumping together several different parts of speech under the notion of one, and calling the whole an "adverbial phrase," a "substantive phrase," or an "interjectional phrase," is but a forced put, by which some grammarians would dodge certain difficulties which they know not how to meet. It is directly repugnant to the idea of parsing; for the parser ever deals with the parts of speech as such, and not with whole phrases in the lump. The foregoing adverbs when used imperatively, have some resemblance to interjections; but, in some of the examples above cited, they certainly are not used in this manner.
OBS. 9.—A conjunctive adverb usually relates to two verbs at the same time, and thus connects two clauses of a compound sentence; as, "And the rest will I set in order when I come,"—1 Cor., xi, 34. Here when is a conjunctive adverb of time, and relates to the two verbs will set and come; the meaning being, "And the rest will I set in order at the time at which I come." This adverb when is often used erroneously in lieu of a nominative after is, to which construction of the word, such an interpretation as the foregoing would not be applicable; because the person means to tell, not when, but what, the thing is, of which he speaks: as, "Another cause of obscurity is when the structure of the sentence is too much complicated, or too artificial; or when the sense is too long suspended by parentheses."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 246. Here the conjunction that would be much better than when, but the sentence might advantageously spare them both; thus, "An other cause of obscurity is too much complication, too artificial a structure of the sentence, or too long a suspension of the sense by parenthesis."
OBS. 10.—For the placing of adverbs, no definite general rule can be given; yet is there no other part of speech so liable to be misplaced. Those which relate to adjectives, or to other adverbs, with very few exceptions, immediately precede them; and those which belong to compound verbs, are commonly placed after the first auxiliary; or, if they be emphatical, after the whole verb. Those which relate to simple verbs, or to simple participles, are placed sometimes before and sometimes after them. Examples are so very common, I shall cite but one: "A man may, in respect to grammatical purity, speak unexceptionably, and yet speak obscurely, or ambiguously; and though we cannot say, that a man may speak properly, and at the same time speak unintelligibly, yet this last case falls more naturally to be considered as an offence against perspicuity, than as a violation of propriety."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 239.
OBS. 11.—Of the infinitive verb and its preposition to, some grammarians say, that they must never be separated by an adverb. It is true, that the adverb is, in general, more elegantly placed before the preposition than after it; but, possibly, the latter position of it may sometimes contribute to perspicuity, which is more essential than elegance: as, "If any man refuse so to implore, and to so receive pardon, let him die the death."—Fuller, on the Gospel, p. 209. The latter word so, if placed like the former, might possibly be understood in a different sense from what it now bears. But perhaps it would be better to say. "If any man refuse so to implore, and on such terms to receive pardon, let him die the death." "Honour teaches us properly to respect ourselves."—Murray's Key, ii, 252. Here it is not quite clear, to which verb the adverb "properly" relates. Some change of the expression is therefore needful. The right to place an adverb sometimes between to and its verb, should, I think, be conceded to the poets: as,
"Who dared to nobly stem tyrannic pride."—BURNS: C. Sat. N.
OBS. 12.—The adverb no is used independently, only when it is equivalent to a whole sentence. This word is sometimes an adverb of degree; and as such it has this peculiarity, that it can relate only to comparatives: as, "No more,"—"No better,"—"No greater,"—"No sooner." When no is set before a noun, it is clearly an adjective, corresponding to the Latin nullus; as, "No clouds, no vapours intervene."—Dyer. Dr. Johnson, with no great accuracy, remarks, "It seems an adjective in these phrases, no longer, no more, no where; though sometimes it may be so commodiously changed to not, that it seems an adverb; as, 'The days are yet no shorter.'"—Quarto Dict. And his first example of what he calls the "adverb NO" is this: "'Our courteous Antony, Whom ne'er the word of no woman heard speak.' SHAKSPEARE."—Ibid. Dr. Webster says, "When it precedes where, as in no where, it may be considered as adverbial, though originally an adjective."—Octavo Dict. The truth is, that no is an adverb, whenever it relates to an adjective; an adjective, whenever it relates to a noun; and a noun, whenever it takes the relation of a case. Thus, in what Johnson cites from Shakspeare, it is a noun, and not an adverb; for the meaning is, that a woman never heard Antony speak the word of no—that is, of negation. And there ought to be a comma after this word, to make the text intelligible. To read it thus: "the word of no woman," makes no an adjective. So, to say, "There are no abler critics than these," is a very different thing from saying, "There are critics no abler than these;" because no is an adjective in the former sentence, and an adverb in the latter. Somewhere, nowhere, anywhere, else-where, and everywhere, are adverbs of place, each of which is composed of the noun where and an adjective; and it is absurd to write a part of them as compound words, and the rest as phrases, as many authors do.
OBS. 13.—In some languages, the more negatives one crowds into a sentence, the stronger is the negation; and this appears to have been formerly the case in English, or in what was anciently the language of Britain: as, "He never yet no vilanie ne sayde in alle his lif unto no manere wight."—Chaucer. "Ne I ne wol non reherce, yef that I may."—Id. "Give not me counsel; nor let no comforter delight mine ear."—Shakspeare. "She cannot love, nor take no shape nor project of affection."—Id. Among people of education, this manner of expression has now become wholly obsolete; though it still prevails, to some extent, in the conversation of the vulgar. It is to be observed, however, that the repetition of an independent negative word or clause yet strengthens the negation; as, "No, no, no."—"No, never."—"No, not for an hour."—Gal., ii, 5. "There is none righteous, no, not one."—Rom., iii, 10. But two negatives in the same clause, if they have any bearing on each other, destroy the negation, and render the meaning weakly affirmative; as, "Nor did they not perceive their evil plight."—Milton. That is, they did perceive it. "'His language, though inelegant, is not ungrammatical;' that is, it is grammatical."— Murray's Gram., p. 198. The term not only, or not merely, being a correspondent to but or but also, may be followed by an other negative without this effect, because the two negative words have no immediate bearing on each other; as, "Your brother is not only not present, and not assisting in prosecuting your injuries, but is now actually with Verres."—Duncan's Cicero, p, 19. "In the latter we have not merely nothing, to denote what the point should be; but no indication, that any point at all is wanting."—Churchill's Gram., p. 373. So the word nothing, when taken positively for nonentity, or that which does not exist, may be followed by an other negative; as,
"First, seat him somewhere, and derive his race,
Or else conclude that nothing has no place."—Dryden, p. 95.
OBS. 14.—The common rule of our grammars, "Two negatives, in English, destroy each other, or are equivalent to an affirmative," is far from being true of all possible examples. A sort of informal exception to it, (which is mostly confined to conversation,) is made by a familiar transfer of the word neither from the beginning of the clause to the end of it; as, "But here is no notice taken of that neither"—Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 336. That is, "But neither is any notice here taken of that." Indeed a negation may be repeated, by the same word or others, as often as we please, if no two of the terms in particular contradict each other; as, "He will never consent, not he, no, never, nor I neither." "He will not have time, no, nor capacity neither."—Bolingbroke, on Hist., p. 103. "Many terms and idioms may be common, which, nevertheless, have not the general sanction, no, nor even the sanction of those that use them."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 160; Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 358. And as to the equivalence spoken of in the same rule, such an expression as, "He did not say nothing," is in fact only a vulgar solecism, take it as you will; whether for, "He did not say anything," or for, "He did say something." The latter indeed is what the contradiction amounts to; but double negatives must be shunned, whenever they seem like blunders. The following examples have, for this reason, been thought objectionable; though Allen says, "Two negatives destroy each other, or elegantly form an affirmation."—Gram., p. 174.
——————"Nor knew I not
To be both will and deed created free."
—Milton, P. L., B. v., l. 548.
"Nor doth the moon no nourishment exhale
From her moist continent to higher orbs."
—Ib., B. v, l. 421.
OBS. 15.—Under the head of double negatives, there appears in our grammars a dispute of some importance, concerning the adoption of or or nor, when any other negative than neither or nor occurs in the preceding clause or phrase: as, "We will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image."—Dan., iii., 18. "Ye have no portion, nor right, nor memorial in Jerusalem."—Neh., ii, 20. "There is no painsworthy difficulty nor dispute about them."—Horne Tooke, Div., Vol. i, p. 43. "So as not to cloud that principal object, nor to bury it."—Blair's Rhet., p. 115; Murray's Gram., p. 322. "He did not mention Leonora, nor her father's death."—Murray's Key, p. 264. "Thou canst not tell whence it cometh, nor whither it goeth."—Ib., p. 215. The form of this text, in John iii, 8th. is—"But canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth;" which Murray inserted in his exercises as bad English. I do not see that the copulative and is here ungrammatical; but if we prefer a disjunctive, ought it not to be or rather than nor? It appears to be the opinion of some, that in ail these examples, and in similar instances innumerable, nor only is proper. Others suppose, that or only is justifiable; and others again, that either or or nor is perfectly correct. Thus grammar, or what should be grammar, differs in the hands of different men! The principle to be settled here, must determine the correctness or incorrectness of a vast number of very common expressions. I imagine that none of these opinions is warrantable, if taken in all that extent to which each of them has been, or may be, carried.
OBS. 16.—It was observed by Priestley, and after him by Lindley Murray, from whom others again have copied the remark: "Sometimes the particles or and nor, may, either of them, be used with nearly equal propriety; [as,] 'The king, whose character was not sufficiently vigorous, nor decisive, assented to the measure.'—Hume. Or would perhaps have been better, but nor seems to repeat the negation in the former part of the sentence, and therefore gives more emphasis to the expression."— Priestley's Gram., p. 138; Murray's, i, 212; Ingersoll's, 268; R. C. Smith's, 177. The conjunction or might doubtless have been used in this sentence, but not with the same meaning that is now conveyed; for, if that connective had been employed, the adjective decisive would have been qualified by the adverb sufficiently, and would have seemed only an alternative for the former epithet, vigorous. As the text now stands, it not only implies a distinction between vigour of character and decision of character, but denies the latter to the king absolutely, the former, with qualification. If the author had meant to suggest such a distinction, and also to qualify his denial of both, he ought to have said—"not sufficiently vigorous, nor sufficiently decisive." With this meaning, however, he might have used neither for not; or with the former, he might have used or for nor, had he transposed the terms—"was not decisive, or sufficiently vigorous."
OBS. 17.—In the tenth edition of John Burn's Practical Grammar, published at Glasgow, in 1810, are the following suggestions: "It is not uncommon to find the conjunctions or and nor used indiscriminately; but if there be any real distinction in the proper application of them, it is to be wished that it were settled. It is attempted thus:—Let the conjunction or be used simply to connect the members of a sentence, or to mark distribution, opposition, or choice, without any preceding negative particle; and nor to mark the subsequent part of a negative sentence, with some negative particle in the preceding part of it. Examples of OR: 'Recreation of one kind or other is absolutely necessary to relieve the body or mind from too constant attention to labour or study.'—'After this life, succeeds a state of rewards or punishments.'—'Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love?' Examples of NOR: 'Let no man be too confident, nor too diffident of his own abilities.'—'Never calumniate any man, nor give the least encouragement to calumniators.'—'There is not a Christian duty to which providence has not annexed a blessing, nor any affliction for which a remedy is not provided.' If the above distinction be just, the following passage seems to be faulty:
'Seasons return, but not to me returns
Day, or the sweet approach of ev'n or morn,
Or sight of vernal bloom, or summer's rose,
Or flocks, or herds, or human face divine.'
Milton, P. L., B. iii, l. 40.—"Burn's Gr., p. 108.
OBS. 18.—T. O. Churchill, whose Grammar first appeared in London in 1823, treats this matter thus: "As or answers to either, nor, a compound of not or [ne or] by contraction, answers to neither, a similar compound of not either [ne either]. The latter however does not constitute that double use of the negative, in which one, agreeably to the principles of philosophical grammar, destroys the other; for a part of the first word, neither, cannot be understood before the second, nor: and for the same reason a part of it could not be understood before or, which is sometimes improperly used in the second clause; while the whole of it, neither, would be obviously improper before or. On the other hand, when not is used in the first clause, nor is improper in the second; since it would involve the impropriety of understanding not before a compound of not [or ne] with or. 'I shall not attempt to convince, nor to persuade you.—What will you not attempt?—To convince, nor to persuade you.' The impropriety of nor in this answer is clear: but the answer should certainly repeat the words not heard, or not understood."—Churchill's New Gram., p. 330.
OBS. 19.—"It is probable, that the use of nor after not has been introduced, in consequence of such improprieties as the following: 'The injustice of inflicting death for crimes, when not of the most heinous nature, or attended with extenuating circumstances.' Here it is obviously not the intention of the writer, to understand the negative in the last clause: and, if this were good English, it would be not merely allowable to employ nor after not, to show the subsequent clause to be negative as well as the preceding, but it would always be necessary. In fact, however, the sentence quoted is faulty, in not repeating the adverb when in the last clause; 'or when attended:' which would preclude the negative from being understood in it; for, if an adverb, conjunction, or auxiliary verb, preceding a negative, be understood in the succeeding clause, the negative is understood also; if it be repeated, the negative must be repeated likewise, or the clause becomes affirmative."—Ib., p. 330.
OBS. 20.—This author, proceeding with his remarks, suggests forms of correction for several other common modes of expression, which he conceives to be erroneous. For the information of the student, I shall briefly notice a little further the chief points of his criticism, though he teaches some principles which I have not thought it necessary always to observe in writing. "'And seemed not to understand ceremony, or to despise it.' Goldsmith. Here either ought to be inserted before not. 'It is not the business of virtue, to extirpate the affections of the mind, but to regulate them.' Addison. The sentence ought to have been: 'It is the business of virtue, not to extirpate the affections of the mind, but to regulate them.' 'I do not think, that he was averse to the office; nor do I believe, that it was unsuited to him.' How much better to say: 'I do not think, that he was averse to the office, or that it was unsuited to him!' For the same reason nor cannot follow never, the negative in the first clause affecting all the rest."—Ib. p. 332. "Nor is sometimes used improperly after no: [as,] 'I humbly however trust in God, that I have hazarded no conjecture, nor have given any explanation of obscure points, inconsistent with the general sense of Scripture, which must be our guide in all dubious passages.' Gilpin. It ought to be: 'and have given no explanation;' or, 'I have neither hazarded any conjecture, nor given any explanation.' The use of or after neither is as common, as that of nor after no or not.[429] 'Neither the pencil or poetry are adequate.' Coxe. Properly, 'Neither the pencil nor poetry is adequate.' 'The vow of poverty allowed the Jesuits individually, to have no idea of wealth.' Dornford. We cannot allow a nonentity. It should be: 'did not allow, to have any idea.'"—Ib., p. 333.
OBS. 21.—Thus we see that Churchill wholly and positively condemns nor after not, no, or never; while Burn totally disapproves of or, under the same circumstances. Both of these critics are wrong, because each carries his point too far; and yet it may not be right, to suppose both particles to be often equally good. Undoubtedly, a negation may be repeated in English without impropriety, and that in several different ways: as, "There is no living, none, if Bertram be away."—Beauties of Shak., p. 3. "Great men are not always wise, neither do the aged [always] understand judgement."—Job, xxxii, 9. "Will he esteem thy riches? no, not gold, nor all the forces of strength."—Job, xxxiv. 19. Some sentences, too, require or, and others nor, even when a negative occurs in a preceding clause; as, "There was none of you that convinced Job, or that answered his words."—Job, xxxii, 12. "How much less to him that accepteth not the persons of princes nor regardeth the rich more than the poor."—Job, xxxiv, 19. "This day is holy unto the Lord your God; mourn not, nor weep."—Neh., viii, 9. "Men's behaviour should be like their apparel, not too straight or point-de-vise, but free for exercise."—Ld. Bacon. Again, the mere repetition of a simple negative is, on some occasions, more agreeable than the insertion of any connective; as, "There is no darkness, nor shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves."—Job, xxxiv, 22. Better: "There is no darkness, no shadow of death, wherein the workers of iniquity may hide themselves." "No place nor any object appears to him void of beauty."—Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 255. Better: "No place, no object, appears to him void of beauty." That passage from Milton which Burn supposes to be faulty, and that expression of Addison's which Churchill dislikes, are, in my opinion, not incorrect as they stand; though, doubtless, the latter admits of the variation proposed. In the former, too, or may twice be changed to nor, where the following nouns are nominatives; but to change it throughout, would not be well, because the other nouns are objectives governed by of:
"Seasons return, but not to me returns Day, nor the sweet approach of ev'n or morn, Nor sight of vernal bloom, or summer's rose, Or flocks, or herds, or human face divine."
OBS. 22.—Ever and never are directly opposite to each other in sense, and yet they are very frequently confounded and misapplied, and that by highly respectable writers; as, "Seldom, or never can we expect," &c.—Blair's Lectures, p. 305. "And seldom, or ever, did any one rise, &c."—Ib., p. 272. "Seldom, or never, is[430] there more than one accented syllable in any English word."—Ib., p. 329. "Which that of the present seldom or ever is understood to be."—Dr. Murray's Hist. of Lang., Vol. ii, p. 120. Here never is right, and ever is wrong. It is time, that is here spoken of; and the affirmative ever, meaning always, or at any time, in stead of being a fit alternative for seldom, makes nonsense of the sentence, and violates the rule respecting the order and fitness of time: unless we change or to if, and say, "seldom, if ever." But in sentences like the following, the adverb appears to express, not time, but degree; and for the latter sense ever is preferable to never, because the degree ought to be possible, rather than impossible: "Ever so little of the spirit of martyrdom is always a more favourable indication to civilization, than ever so much dexterity of party management, or ever so turbulent protestation of immaculate patriotism."—Wayland's Moral Science, p. 411. "Now let man reflect but never so little on himself."—Burlamaqui, on Law, p. 29. "Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely."—Ps., lviii, 5. The phrase ever so, (which ought, I think, to be written as one word,) is now a very common expression to signify in whatsoever degree; as, "everso little,"—"everso much,"—"everso wise,"—"everso wisely." And it is manifestly this, and not time, that is intended by the false phraseology above;—"a form of speech handed down by the best writers, but lately accused, I think with justice, of solecism. * * * It can only be defended by supplying a very harsh and unprecedented ellipsis."—Johnson's Dict., w. Never.
OBS. 23.—Dr. Lowth seconds this opinion of Johnson, respecting the phrase, "never so wisely," and says, "It should be, 'ever so wisely;' that is, 'how wisely soever.'" To which he adds an other example somewhat different: "'Besides, a slave would not have been admitted into that society, had he had never such opportunities.' Bentley."—Lowth's Gram., p. 109. This should be, "had he had everso excellent opportunities." But Churchill, mistaking the common explanation of the meaning of everso for the manner of parsing or resolving it, questions the propriety of the term, and thinks it easier to defend the old phrase never so; in which he supposes never to be an adverb of time, and not to relate to so, which is an adverb of degree; saying, "'Be it never so true,' is resolvable into, 'Be it so true, as never any thing was.'[431] 'I have had never so much trouble on this occasion,' may be resolved into, 'I have never had so much trouble, as on this occasion:' while, 'I have had ever so much trouble on this occasion, cannot be resolved, without supplying some very harsh and unprecedented ellipsis indeed."—New Gram., p. 337, Why not? I see no occasion at all for supposing any ellipsis. Ever is here an adverb of degree, and relates to so; or, if we take everso as one word, this too is an adverb of degree, and relates to much: because the meaning is—"everso much trouble." But the other phraseology, even as it stands in Churchill's explanations, is a solecism still; nor can any resolution which supposes never to be here an adverb of time, be otherwise. We cannot call that a grammatical resolution, which makes a different sense from that which the writer intended: as, "A slave would not have been admitted into that society, had he never had such opportunities." This would be Churchill's interpretation, but it is very unlike what Bentley says above. So, 'I have never had so much trouble,' and, 'I have had everso much trouble,' are very different assertions.
OBS. 24.—On the word never, Dr. Johnson remarks thus: "It seems in some phrases to have the sense of an adjective, [meaning,] not any; but in reality it is not ever: [as,] 'He answered him to never a word.' MATTHEW, xxvii, 14."—Quarto Dict. This mode of expression was formerly very common, and a contracted form of it is still frequently heard among the vulgar: as, "Because he'd ne'er an other tub."—Hudibras, p. 102. That is, "Because he had no other tub." "Letter nor line know I never a one."—Scott's Lay of L. M., p. 27. This is what the common people pronounce "ne'er a one," and use in stead of neither or no one. In like manner they contract ever a one into "e'er a one;" by which they mean either or any one. These phrases are the same that somebody—(I believe it is Smith, in his Inductive Grammar—) has ignorantly written "ary one" and "nary one" calling them vulgarisms.[432] Under this mode of spelling, the critic had an undoubted right to think the terms unauthorized! In the compounds of whoever or whoe'er, whichever or whiche'er, whatever or whate'er, the word ever or e'er, which formerly stood separate, appears to be an adjective, rather than an adverb; though, by becoming part of the pronoun, it has now technically ceased to be either.
OBS. 25.—The same may be said of soever or soe'er, which is considered as only a part of an other word even when it is written separately; as, "On which side soever I cast my eyes." In Mark, iii, 28th, wherewithsoever is commonly printed as two words; but Alger, in his Pronouncing Bible, more properly makes it one. Dr. Webster, in his grammars, calls soever a WORD; but, in his dictionaries, he does not define it as such. "The word soever may be interposed between the attribute and the name; 'how clear soever this idea of infinity,'—'how remote soever it may seem.'—LOCKE."—Webster's Philosophical Gram., p. 154; Improved Gram., p. 107. "SOEVER, so and ever, found in compounds, as in whosoever, whatsoever, wheresoever. See these words."—Webster's Dict., 8vo.
OBS. 26.—The word only, (i.e., onely, or onelike,) when it relates to a noun or a pronoun, is a definitive adjective, meaning single, alone, exclusive of others; as, "The only man,"—"The only men,"—"Man only,"—"Men only,"—"He only,"—"They only." When it relates to a verb or a participle, it is an adverb of manner, and means simply, singly, merely, barely; as, "We fancy that we hate flattery, when we only hate the manner of it."—Art of Thinking, p. 38. "A disinterested love of one's country can only subsist in small republics."—Ib., p. 56. When it stands at the head of a clause, it is commonly a connective word, equivalent to but, or except that; in which sense, it must be called a conjunction, or at least a conjunctive adverb, which is nearly the same thing; as, "Only they would that we should remember the poor."—Gal., ii, 10. "For these signs are prepositions, only they are of more constant use than the rest."—Ward's Gram., p. 129.
OBS. 27.—Among our grammarians, the word "only" often passes for an adverb, when it is in fact an adjective. Such a mistake in this single word, has led Churchill to say of the adverb in general, "It's place is for the most part before adjectives, after nouns, and after verbs;" &c.—New Gram., p. 147. But, properly, the placing of adverbs has nothing to do with "nouns," because adverbs do not relate to nouns. In this author's example, "His arm only was bare," there is no adverb; and, where he afterwards speaks of the latitude allowable in the placing of adverbs, alleging, "It is indifferent whether we say, 'He bared his arm only;' or, 'He bared only his arm,'" the word only is an adjective, in one instance, if not in both. With this writer, and some others, the syntax of an adverb centres mainly in the suggestion, that, "It's propriety and force depend on it's position."—Ib., p. 147. Illustration: "Thus people commonly say; 'I only spoke three words:' which properly implies, that I, and no other person, spoke three words: when the intention of the speaker requires: 'I spoke only three words; that is, no more than three words.'"—Ib., p. 327. One might just as well say, "I spoke three words only." But the interpretation above is hypercritical, and contrary to that which the author himself gives in his note on the other example, thus: "Any other situation of the adverb would make a difference. 'He only bared his arm;' would imply, that he did nothing more than bare his arm. 'Only he bared his arm;' must refer to a preceding part of the sentence, stating something, to which the act of baring his arm was an exception; as, 'He did it in the same manner, only he bared his arm.' If only were placed immediately before arm; as, 'He bared his only arm;' it would be an adjective, and signify, that he had but one arm."—Ib., p. 328. Now are not, "I only spoke three words," and, "He only bared his arm," analogous expressions? Is not the former as good English as the latter? Only, in both, is most naturally conceived to belong to the verb; but either may be read in such a manner as to make it an adjective belonging to the pronoun.
OBS. 28.—The term not but is equivalent to two negatives that make an affirmative; as, "Not but that it is a wide place."—Walker's Particles, p. 89. "Non quo non latus locus sit."—Cic. Ac., iv, 12. It has already been stated, that cannot but is equal to must; as, "It is an affection which cannot but be productive of some distress."—Blair's Rhet., p. 461. It seems questionable, whether but is not here an adverb, rather than a conjunction. However this may be, by the customary (but faulty) omission of the negative before but, in some other sentences, that conjunction has acquired the adverbial sense of only; and it may, when used with that signification, be called an adverb. Thus, the text, "He hath not grieved me but in part." (2 Cor., ii, 5,) might drop the negative not, and still convey the same meaning: "He hath grieved me but in part;" i.e., "only in part." In the following examples, too, but appears to be an adverb, like only: "Things but slightly connected should not be crowded into one sentence."—Murray's Octavo Gram., Index. "The assertion, however, serves but to show their ignorance."—Webster's Essays, p. 96.
"Reason itself but gives it edge and power."—Pope.
"Born but to die, and reasoning but to err."—Id.
OBS. 29.—In some constructions of the word but, there is a remarkable ambiguity; as, "There cannot be but one capital musical pause in a line."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 92. "A line admits but one capital pause."—Ibid. Thus does a great critic, in the same paragraph, palpably contradict himself, and not perceive it. Both expressions are equivocal. He ought rather to have said: "A line admits no more than one capital pause."—"There cannot be more than one capital musical pause in a line." Some would say—"admits only one"—"there can be only one." But here, too, is some ambiguity; because only may relate either to one, or to the preceding verb. The use of only for but or except that, is not noticed by our lexicographers; nor is it, in my opinion, a practice much to be commended, though often adopted by men that pretend to write grammatically: as, "Interrogative pronouns are the same as relative, ONLY their antecedents cannot be determined till the answer is given to the question."—Comly's Gram., p. 16. "A diphthong is always long; as, Aurum, Cæsar, &c. ONLY præ, in composition before a vowel is commonly short."—Adam's Gram., p. 254; Gould's, 246.
OBS. 30.—It is said by some grammarians, that, "The adverb there is often used as an expletive, or as a word that adds nothing to the sense; in which case, it precedes the verb and the nominative; as, 'There is a person at the door.'"—Murray's Gram., p. 197; Ingersoll's, 205; Greenleaf's, 33; Nixon's Parser, p. 53. It is true, that in our language the word there is thus used idiomatically, as an introductory term, when we tell what is taking, or has taken, place; but still it is a regular adverb of place, and relates to the verb agreeably to the common rule for adverbs. In some instances it is even repeated in the same sentence, because, in its introductory sense, it is always unemphatical; as, "Because there was pasture there for their flocks."—1 Chron., iv, 41. "If there be indistinctness or disorder there, we can have no success."—Blair's Rhet., p. 271. "There, there are schools adapted to every age."—Woodbridge, Lit. Conv., p. 78. The import of the word is more definite, when emphasis is laid upon it; but this is no good reason for saying, with Dr. Webster, that it is "without signification," when it is without emphasis; or, with Dr. Priestley, that it "seems to have no meaning whatever, except it be thought to give a small degree of emphasis."—Rudiments of E. Gram., p. 135.
OBS. 31.—The noun place itself is just as loose and variable in its meaning as the adverb there. For example; "There is never any difference;" i.e., "No difference ever takes place." Shall we say that "place," in this sense, is not a noun of place? To take place, is, to occur somewhere, or anywhere; and the unemphatic word there is but as indefinite in respect to place, as these other adverbs of place, or as the noun itself. S. B. Goodenow accounts it a great error, to say that there is an adverb of place, when it is thus indefinite; and he chooses to call it an "indefinite pronoun," as, "'What is there here?'—'There is no peace.'—'What need was there of it?'" See his Gram., p. 3 and p. 11. In treating of the various classes of adverbs, I have admitted and shown, that here, there, and where, have sometimes the nature of pronouns, especially in such compounds as hereof, thereof, whereof; but in this instance, I see not what advantage there is in calling there a "pronoun:" we have just as much reason to call here and where pronouns—and that, perhaps, on all occasions. Barnard says, "In the sentence, 'There is one glory of the sun,' &c., the adverb there qualifies the verb is, and seems to have the force of an affirmation, like truly"—Analytical Gram., p. 234. But an adverb of the latter kind may be used with the word there, and I perceive no particular similarity between them: as, "Verily there is a reward for the righteous."—Psal., lviii, 11. "Truly there is a glory of the sun."
OBS. 32.—There is a vulgar error of substituting the adverb most for almost, as in the phrases, "most all,"—"most anywhere,"—"most every day,"—which we sometimes hear for "almost all,"—"almost anywhere,"—"almost every day." The fault is gross, and chiefly colloquial, but it is sometimes met with in books; as, "But thinking he had replied most too rashly, he said, 'I won't answer your question.'"—Wagstaff's History of Friends, Vol. i, p. 207.