Part 141 (1/2)

Thus, in what Johnson cites fro is, that a woman never heard Antony speak the word _of no_--that is, _of negation_ And there ought to be a coible 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 fro, ”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 es, the er is the negation; and this appears to have been foruage of Britain: as, ”He _never_ yet _no_ vilanie _ne_ sayde in alle his lif unto _no_ ht”--_Chaucer_ ”_Ne_ I _ne_ wol _non_ reherce, yef that I may”--_Id_ ”Give _not_ ht mine ear”--_Shakspeare_ ”She _cannot_ love, _nor_ take _no_ shape _nor_ project of affection”--_Id_ A people of education, this h it still prevails, to soar 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”--_Roatives in the sa on each other, destroy the negation, and render theweakly affirht”--_Milton_ That is, they _did_ perceive it ”'His language, though inelegant, is _not ungrarammatical”-- _Murray's Gra a correspondent to _but_ or _but also_, ative without this effect, because the two negative words have no i 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 _, to denote what the point should be; _but no_ indication, that any point at all is wanting”--_Churchill's Gra_, when taken positively for nonentity, or that which does not exist, ative; as,

”First, seat him so_ has _no_ place”--_Dryden_, p 95

OBS 14--The colish, destroy each other, or are equivalent to an affir _true_ of all possible examples A sort of informal exception to it, (which is mostly confined to conversation,) is inning 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 tibroke, on Hist_, p 103 ”Many terms and idioeneral 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 sa_,” is in fact only a vulgar solecism, take it as you will; whether for, ”He did _not_ say _anything_,” or for, ”He _did_ say _so_” The latter indeed is what the contradiction aatives must be shunned, whenever they _see exah 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 her orbs”

--_Ib_, B v, l 421

OBS 15--Under the head of _double negatives_, there appears in our gra 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_ worshi+p the golden iht, _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 cooeth”--_Ib_, p 215

The form of this text, in John iii, 8th is--”But canst not tell whence it cooeth;” which Murray inserted in his exercises as bad English I do not see that the copulative _and_ is here ungraht 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 grarammar, differs in the hands of different men! The principle to be settled here, must determine the correctness or incorrectness of a vast nuine 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 hiain have copied the remark: ”Sometimes the particles _or_ and _nor_, may, either of the, whose character was not sufficiently vigorous, _nor_ decisive, assented to the measure'--_Hume Or_ would perhaps have been better, but _nor_ seeation in the forives more emphasis to the expression”-- _Priestley's Graersoll's_, 268; _R C

Sht doubtless have been used in this sentence, but _not with the sa_ 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 seeorous_ As the text now stands, it not only iour of character and decision of character, but denies the latter to the king absolutely, the forest such a distinction, and also to qualify his denial of both, he ought to have said--”not sufficiently vigorous, _nor sufficiently_ decisive” With this ht have used _neither_ for _not_; or with the forht have used _or_ for _nor_, had he transposed the terorous”

OBS 17--In the tenth edition of John Burn's Practical Graestions: ”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 ative 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 caluement 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_ ht 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 i _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 i death for crimes, when _not_ of thecircumstances' 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 fro 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 reests 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 criticisht it necessary always to observe in writing ”'And seemed _not_ to understand ceremony, _or_ to despise it'

_Goldsht to be inserted before _not_ 'It is _not_ the business of virtue, to extirpate the affections of the ht to have been: 'It is the business of virtue, _not_ to extirpate the affections of the ulate 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 hiative 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 ht 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 sa, because each carries his point too far; and yet it ht, to suppose both particles to be often equally good Undoubtedly, a negation lish without impropriety, and that in several different ways: as, ”There is _no_ living, _none_, if Bertram be away”--_Beauties of Shak_, p 3 ”Great ed [always]

understand judgement”--_Job_, xxxii, 9 ”Will he esteeth”--_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 hiardeth 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 ative is, on soreeable 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 hie from Milton which Burn supposes to be faulty, and that expression of Addison's which Churchill dislikes, are, in h, doubtless, the latter admits of the variation proposed In the fored to _nor_, where the following nouns are nohout, 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_ ht 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 hly 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 lish word”--_Ib_, p 329 ”Which that of the present seldo_, Vol ii, p 120 Here _never_ is right, and _ever_ is wrong It is _time_, that is here spoken of; and the affir _always_, or _at any ti a fit alternative for _seldom_, makes nonsense of the sentence, and violates the rule respecting the order and fitness of tie _or_ to _if_, and say, ”seldo, the adverb appears to express, not tiree_; 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_ ement, 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 char _never so_ wisely”--_Ps_, lviii, 5 The phrase _ever so_, (which ought, I think, to be written as _one word_,) is now a very coree_; as, ”_everso_ little,”--”_everso_ much,”--”_everso_ wise,”--”_everso_ wisely” And it is manifestly this, and not tiy above;--”a form of speech handed down by the best writers, but lately accused, I think with justice, of solecis 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, '_hoisely _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,of _everso_ for theit, 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 tiree; 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 Gra 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 _ is--”_everso y, 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 tirammatical 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 so,] _not any_; but in reality it is _not ever_: [as,] 'He answered him to _never_ a word'