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.