Part 73 (1/2)

IND Loves he? _or_ Does he love? Loved he? _or_ Did he love? Has he loved?

Had he loved? Shall _or_ will he love? Will he have loved? POT May, can, _or_ ht, could, would, _or_ should he love? May, can, _or_ ht, could, would, _or_ should he have loved?

VI FORM OF QUESTION WITH NEGATION

A verb is conjugated _interrogatively and negatively_, in the indicative and potentialthe nominative and the adverb _not_ after the verb, or after the first auxiliary: as,

FIRST PERSON PLURAL

IND Love we not? _or_ Do we not love? Loved we not? _or_ Did we not love?

Have we not loved? Had we not loved? Shall we not love? Shall we not have loved? POT May, can, _or_ ht, could, would, _or_ should we not love? May, can, _or_ ht, could, would, _or_ should we not have loved?

SECOND PERSON PLURAL

IND See ye not? _or_ Do you not see? Saw ye not? _or_ Did you not see?

Have you not seen? Had you not seen? Will you not see? Will you not have seen? POT May, can, _or_ ht, could, would, _or_ should you not see? May, can, _or_ ht, could, would, _or_ should you not have seen?

THIRD PERSON PLURAL

IND Are they not loved? Were they not loved? Have they not been loved? Had they not been loved? Shall _or_ will they not be loved? Will they not have been loved? May, can, _or_ ht, could, would, _or_ should they not be loved? May, can, _or_ ht, could, would, _or_ should they not have been loved?

OBSERVATIONS

OBS 1--In a faation, the coeneral, preferable to the simple: as, ”No man lives to purpose, who _does not live_ for posterity”--_Dr Wayland_ It is indeed so much more common, as to seem the only proper s as a man?”--”_Do you think_ that we excuse ourselves?”--”_Do you not know_ that a little leaven _leavens_ the whole lump?”--”_Dost thou revile?_” &c But in the soleh either nified, and perhaps s as a man?”--_1 Cor_, ix, 8

”_Think ye_ that we excuse ourselves?”--_2 Cor_, xii, 19 ”_Know ye not_ that a little leaven _leaveneth_ the whole luh priest?”--_Acts_ ”King Agrippa, _believest thou_ the prophets?”--_Ib_ ”_Understandest thou_ what thou readest?”--_Ib_ ”Of whom _speaketh_ the prophet this?”--_Id_ ”And the s_, vi, 6

”What! _heard ye not_ of lowland war?”--_Sir W Scott, L L_

”_Seehost?”--_Id, L of Lake_

”Where _thinkst thou_ he is now? _Stands he_, or _sits he?_ Or _does he walk?_ or _is he_ on his horse?”--_Shak, Ant and Cleop_

OBS 2--In interrogative sentences, the auxiliaries _shall_ and _will_ are not always capable of being applied to the different persons agreeably to their use in sio?” is a question which there never can be any occasion to ask in its literal sense; because none knows better than I, what o?” may properly be asked; because _shall_ here refers to _duty_, and asks to knohat is agreeable to the will of an other In questions, the first person generally requires _shall_; the second, _will_; the third admits of both: but, in the second-future, the third, used interrogatively, seeurative kind of interrogation which is soative, there may be occasional exceptions to these principles; as, ”_Will I eat_ the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?”--_Psalms_, 1, 13 That is, _I will not eat_, &c

OBS 3--_Cannot_ is not properly one word, but two: in parsing, the adverb must be taken separately, and the auxiliary be explained with its principal When power is denied, _can_ and _not_ are now _generally united_--perhaps in order to prevent ao” But when the power is affir else is denied, the words are written separately; as, ”The Christian apologist _can not merely_ expose the utter baseness of the infidel assertion, but he has positive ground for erecting an opposite and confronting assertion in its place”--_Dr

Chalmers_ The junction of these terms, however, is not of much importance to the sense; and, as it is plainly contrary to analogy, some writers,--(as Dr Webster, in his late or ”improved” works; Dr Bullions, in his; Prof

W C Fowler, in his new ”English Grammar,” 8vo; R C Trench, in his ”Study of Words;” T S Pinneo, in his ”revised” grammars; J R Chandler, W S Cardell, O B Peirce,--) always separate theo, Thou _canst not_ go, He _cannot_ go?”

Apart froood reason to join _not_ to _canst_ as to _can_; and soross error: as, ”He _cannot only_ make a way to escape, but with the injunction to duty can infuse the power to perforuity never prevents us fro _can_ and _not_ whenever ish to put a word between theh the waves thereof toss theh they roar, yet _can_ they _not_ pass over it”--_Jeremiah_, v, 22 ”Which then I _can_ resist _not_”--_Byron's Manfred_, p 1

”_Can_ I _not_ las eye?”--_Scott_

OBS 4--In negative questions, the adverb _not_ is sometimes placed before the nominative, and sometimes after it: as, ”Told _not I_ thee?”--_Nuers?”--_Ib_, xxiv, 12

”_Cannot I_ do with you as this potter?”--_Jer_, xviii, 6 ”Art _not thou_ a seer?”--_2 Sam_, xv, 27 ”Did _not Israel_ know?”--_Rom_, x, 19 ”Have _they not_ heard?”--_Ib_, 18 ”Do _not they_ blaspheme that worthy name?”--_James_, ii, 7 This adverb, like every other, should be placed where it will sound ined that it could not properly come before the nominative He says, ”When the nominative case is put after the verb, on account of _an_ interrogation, _no other word_ should be interposed between them

[EXAMPLES:] 'May _not we_ here say with Lucretius?'--Addison on Medals, p

29 May _we not_ say? 'Is _not it_ he' [?] Smollett's Voltaire, Vol 18, p

152 Is _it not_ he [?]”--_Priestley's Grarave discourse, or in oratory, the adverb _not_ is spoken as distinctly as other words; but, _ordinarily_, when placed before the nominative, it is rapidly slurred over in utterance and the _o_ is not heard In fact, it is _generally_ (though inelegantly) contracted in familiar conversation, and joined to the auxiliary: as, IND Don't they do it? Didn't they do it? Haven't they done it? Hadn't they done it? Shan't, _or_ won't they do it? Won't they have done it? POT Mayn't, can't, _or_ htn't, couldn't, wouldn't, _or_ shouldn't they do it? Mayn't, can't, _or_ htn't, couldn't, wouldn't, _or_ shouldn't they have done it?