[31] Mason’s English Grammar, p. 149, note.
[32] Cf. Zumpt, Lat. Gr., § 609.
[33] But cf. Quisnam hoc fecit? in Latin, by the side of Si quis hoc fecit.
[34] Thus, in French: Ma fille l’aimerait? (Duval); Vous n’avez nul remords? (Delavigne); Ces messieurs viennent de Paris? (Picard). Latin: Clodius insidias fecit Miloni? (Cicero, pro Mil., xxii.).
[35] Thus, in French: Richard député, pourquoi pas? (Dumas); Rien de Monsieur le duc de Richelieu? (Dumas).
[36] Similarly, in French: Quoi tu connais l’amour et tu n’es pas humain! (Ducis).
[37] We must not forget that these terms are here used in the very widest sense, and not in the limited meaning of ordinary grammar.
[38] See pp. 119, fol.
[39] This symbol is somewhat different from the one employed by Professor Paul, which is (a + (b) + c). Though we think the one we have chosen is rather more simple, the other is not difficult to understand, as symbolising the result of combining (a + b) with (b + c). If, instead of two similar sets of brackets, different ones were used, say {a + [b} + c], the meaning of what now appears as (b) might be clearer still. Professor Paul uses a, b, and c as indicating three different parts; we use three letters for three parts, but make two letters alike, because two of the three parts have the same function. Cf., later on, for our symbol of the second case, page 119.
[40] Paul (a + b) + c. See note on p. 110.