UNDER NOTE XIII.—PERFECT PARTICIPLES.

"Garcilasso was master of the language spoke by the Incas."—Robertson's Amer., ii, 459. "When an interesting story is broke off in the middle."—Kames, El. of Crit., i, 244. "Speaking of Hannibal's elephants drove back by the enemy."—Ib., ii, 32. "If Du Ryer had not wrote for bread, he would have equalled them."—Formey's Belles-Lettres, p. 166. "Pope describes a rock broke off from a mountain, and hurling to the plain."—Kames, ii, 106. "I have wrote or have written, Thou hast wrote or hast written. He hath or has wrote, or hath or has written;" &c.—Dr. Ash's Gram., p. 47; Maltby's, 47. "This was spoke by a pagan."—Webster's Improved Gram., p. 174. "But I have chose to follow the common arrangement."—Ib., p. 10. "The language spoke in Bengal."—Ib., p. 78. "And sound Sleep thus broke off, with suddain Alarms, is apt enough to discompose any one."—Locke, on Ed., p. 32. "This is not only the Case of those Open Sinners, before spoke of."—Right of Tythes, p. 26. "Some Grammarians have wrote a very perplexed and difficult doctrine on Punctuation."—Ensell's Gram., p. 340. "There hath a pity arose in me towards thee."—Sewel's Hist., fol., p. 324. "Abel is the only man that has underwent the awful change of death."—Juvenile Theatre, p. 4.

"Meantime, on Afric's glowing sands, Smote with keen heat, the Trav'ler stands."—Union Poems, p. 88.



CHAPTER VIII.—ADVERBS.

The syntax of an Adverb consists in its simple relation to a verb, a participle, an adjective, or whatever else it qualifies; just as the syntax of an English Adjective, (except in a few instances,) consists in its simple relation to a noun or a pronoun.

RULE XXI.—ADVERBS.

Adverbs relate to verbs, participles, adjectives, or other adverbs: as, "Any passion that habitually discomposes our temper, or unfits us for properly discharging the duties of life, has most certainly gained a very dangerous ascendency."—Blair.

"How bless'd this happy hour, should he appear, Dear to us all, to me supremely dear!"—Pope's Homer.

EXCEPTION FIRST.

The adverbs yes, ay, and yea, expressing a simple affirmation, and the adverbs no and nay, expressing a simple negation, are always independent. They generally answer a question, and are equivalent to a whole sentence. Is it clear, that they ought to be called adverbs? No. "Can honour set to a leg? No. Or an arm? No. Or take away the grief of a wound? No. Honour hath no skill in surgery then? No."—SHAK.: First Part of Hen. IV, Act v, 1.

EXCEPTION SECOND.

The word amen, which is commonly called an adverb, is often used independently at the beginning or end of a declaration or a prayer; and is itself a prayer, meaning, So let it be: as, "Surely, I come quickly. Amen: Even so, come Lord Jesus."—Rev., xxii, 20. When it does not stand thus alone, it seems in general to be used substantively; as, "The strangers among them stood on Gerizim, and echoed amen to the blessings."—Wood's Dict. "These things saith the Amen."—Rev., iii, 14

EXCEPTION THIRD.

An adverb before a preposition seems sometimes to relate to the latter, rather than to the verb or participle to which the preposition connects its object; as, "This mode of pronunciation runs considerably beyond ordinary discourse."—Blair's Rhet., p. 334. "Yea, all along the times of the apostasy, this was the thing that preserved the witnesses."—Penington's Works, Vol. iv, p. 12. [See Obs. 8th on Rule 7th.]

"Right against the eastern gate, Where the great sun begins his state."—Milton, L'Allegro.

EXCEPTION FOURTH.

The words much, little, far, and all, being originally adjectives, are sometimes preceded by the negative not, or (except the last) by such an adverb as too, how, thus, so, or as, when they are taken substantively; as, "Not all that glitters, is gold."—"Too much should not be offered at once."—Murray's Gram., p. 140. "Thus far is consistent."—Ib., p. 161. "Thus far is right."—Lowth's Gram., p. 101.

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: "Vere Metellus," may mean, "This is truly Metellus;" and "Homerus plane 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 vere Israelita."—Beza; also Montanus. "[Greek: Ide alaethos 'Israaelitaes.]"—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, Caesar, &c. ONLY prae, 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.

NOTES TO RULE XXI.

NOTE I.—Adverbs must be placed in that position which will render the sentence the most perspicuous and agreeable. Example of error: "We are in no hazard of mistaking the sense of the author, though every word which he uses be not precise and exact."—Blair's Rhet., p. 95; Jamieson's, 66. Murray says,—"though every word which he uses is not precise and exact."—Octavo Gram., p. 302. Better:—"though not every word which he uses, is precise and exact."

NOTE II.—Adverbs should not be needlessly used for adjectives; nor should they be employed when quality is to be expressed, and not manner: as, "That the now copies of the original text are entire."—S. Fisher. Say, "the present copies," or, "the existing copies." "The arrows of calumny fall harmlessly at the feet of virtue."—Murray's Key, p. 167; Merchant's Gram., 186; Ingersoll's, 10; Kirkham's, 24. Say, "fall harmless;" as in this example: "The impending black cloud, which is regarded with so much dread, may pass by harmless."—Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 262.

NOTE III.—With a verb of motion, most grammarians prefer hither, thither, and whither, to here, there, and where, which are in common use, and perhaps allowable, though not so good; as, "Come hither, Charles,"—or, "Come here."

NOTE IV.—"To the adverbs hence, thence, and whence, the preposition from is frequently (though not with strict propriety) prefixed; as, from hence, from whence."—See W. Allen's Gram., p. 174. Some critics, however, think this construction allowable, notwithstanding the former word is implied in the latter. See Priestley's Gram., p. 134; and L. Murray's, p. 198. It is seldom elegant to use any word needlessly.

NOTE V.—The adverb how should not be used before the conjunction that, nor in stead of it; as, "He said how he would go."—"Ye see how that not many wise men are called." Expunge how. This is a vulgar error. Somewhat similar is the use of how for lest or that not; as, "Be cautious how you offend him, i.e., that you do not offend him."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 175.

NOTE VI.—The adverb when, while, or where, is not fit to follow the verb is in a definition, or to introduce a clause taken substantively; because it expresses identity, not of being, but of time or place: as, "Concord, is when one word agrees with another in some accidents."—Adam's Gram., p. 151; Gould's, 155. Say, "Concord is the agreement of one word with an other in some accident or accidents."

NOTE VII.—The adverb no should not be used with reference to a verb or a participle. Such expressions as, "Tell me whether you will go or no," are therefore improper: no should be not; because the verb go is understood after it. The meaning is, "Tell me whether you will go or will not go;" but nobody would think of saying, "Whether you will go or no go."

NOTE VIII.—A negation, in English, admits but one negative word; because two negatives in the same clause, usually contradict each other, and make the meaning affirmative. The following example is therefore ungrammatical: "For my part, I love him not, nor hate him not."—Beauties of Shakspeare, p. 16. Expunge the last not, or else change nor to and.

NOTE IX.—The words ever and never should be carefully distinguished according to their sense, and not confounded with each other in their application. Example: "The Lord reigneth, be the earth never so unquiet."—Experience of St. Paul, p. 195. Here, I suppose, the sense to require everso, an adverb of degree: "Be the earth everso unquiet." That is,—"unquiet in whatever degree."

NOTE X.—Adverbs that end in ly, are in general preferable to those forms which, for want of this distinction, may seem like adjectives misapplied. Example: "There would be scarce any such thing in nature as a folio."—Addison. Better:—"scarcely."

IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.

FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE XXI.

EXAMPLES UNDER NOTE I.—THE PLACING OF ADVERBS.

"All that is favoured by good use, is not proper to be retained."—Murray's Gram., ii, p. 296.

[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the adverb not is not put in the most suitable place. But, according to Note 1st under Rule 21st, "Adverbs must be placed in that position which will render the sentence the most perspicuous and agreeable." The sentence will be improved by placing not before all; thus, "Not all that is favoured by good use, is proper to be retained."]

"Every thing favoured by good use, [is] not on that account worthy to be retained."—Ib., i, 369; Campbell's Rhet., p. 179. "Most men dream, but all do not."—Beattie's Moral Science, i, 72. "By hasty composition, we shall acquire certainly a very bad style."—Blair's Rhet., p. 191. "The comparisons are short, touching on one point only of resemblance."—Ib., p. 416. "Having had once some considerable object set before us."—Ib., p. 116. "The positive seems improperly to be called a degree."—Adam's Gram., p. 69; Gould's, 68. "In some phrases the genitive is only used."—Adam, 159; Gould, 161. "This blunder is said actually to have occurred."—Smith's Inductive Gram., p. 5. "But every man is not called James, nor every woman Mary."—Buchanan's Gram., p. 15. "Crotchets are employed for the same purpose nearly as the parenthesis."—Churchill's Gram., p. 167. "There is still a greater impropriety in a double comparative."—Priestley's Gram., p. 78. "We have often occasion to speak of time."—Lowth's Gram., p. 39. "The following sentence cannot be possibly understood."—Ib., p. 104. "The words must be generally separated from the context."—Comly's Gram., p. 155. "Words ending in ator have the accent generally on the penultimate."—Murray's Gram., i, 239. "The learned languages, with respect to voices, moods, and tenses, are, in general, differently constructed from the English tongue."—Ib., i, 101. "Adverbs seem originally to have been contrived to express compendiously in one word, what must otherwise have required two or more."—Ib., i, 114. "But it is only so, when the expression can be converted into the regular form of the possessive case."—Ib., i, 174. "Enter, (says he) boldly, for here too there are gods."—Harris's Hermes, p. 8. "For none work for ever so little a pittance that some cannot be found to work for less."—Sedgwick's Economy, p. 190. "For sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again."—Luke, vi, 34. "They must be viewed exactly in the same light."—Murray's Gram., ii, 24. "If he does but speak to display his abilities, he is unworthy of attention."—Ib., Key, ii, 207.

UNDER NOTE II.—ADVERBS FOR ADJECTIVES.

"Motion upwards is commonly more agreeable than motion downwards."—Blair's Rhet., p. 48. "There are but two ways possibly of justification before God."—Dr. Cox, on Quakerism, p. 413. "This construction sounds rather harshly."—Murray's Gram., i, 194; Ingersoll's, 199. "A clear conception in the mind of the learner, of regularly and well-formed letters."—Com. School Journal, i, 66. "He was a great hearer of * * * Attalus, Sotion, Papirius, Fabianus, of whom he makes often mention."—Seneca's Morals, p. 11. "It is only the Often doing of a thing that makes it a Custom."—Divine Right of Tythes, p. 72. "Because W. R. takes oft occasion to insinuate his jealousies of persons and things."—Barclay's Works, i, 570. "Yet often touching will wear gold."—Beauties of Shak., p. 18. "Uneducated persons frequently use an adjective, when they ought to use an adverb: as, 'The country looks beautiful;' instead of beautifully."—Bucke's Gram., p. 84. "The adjective is put absolutely, or without its substantive."—Ash's Gram., p. 57. "A noun or pronoun in the second person, may be put absolutely in the nominative case."—Harrison's Gram., p. 45. "A noun or pronoun, when put absolutely with a participle," &c.—Ib., p. 44; Jaudon's Gram., 108. "A verb in the infinitive mood absolute, stands independently of the remaining part of the sentence."—Wilbur and Livingston's Gram., p. 24. "At my return lately into England, I met a book intituled: 'The Iron Age.'"—Cowley's Preface, p. v. "But he can discover no better foundation for any of them, than the practice merely of Homer and Virgil."—Kames, El. of Criticism, Introd., p. xxv.

UNDER NOTE III—HERE FOR HITHER, &c.

"It is reported that the governour will come here to-morrow."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 196. "It has been reported that the governour will come here to-morrow."—Ib., Key, p. 227. "To catch a prospect of that lovely land where his steps are tending."—Maturin's Sermons, p. 244. "Plautus makes one of his characters ask another where he is going with that Vulcan shut up in a horn; that is, with a lanthorn in his hand."—Adams's Rhet. ii, 331. "When we left Cambridge, we intended to return there in a few days."—Anonym. "Duncan comes here to-night."—Shak., Macbeth. "They talked of returning here last week."—J. M. Putnam's Gram., p. 116.

UNDER NOTE IV.—FROM HENCE, &c.

"From hence he concludes that no inference can be drawn from the meaning of the word, that a constitution has a higher authority than a law or statute."—Webster's Essays, p. 67. "From whence we may likewise date the period of this event."—Murray's Key, ii, p. 202. "From hence it becomes evident, that LANGUAGE, taken in the most comprehensive view, implies certain Sounds, having certain Meanings."—Harris's Hermes, p. 315. "They returned to the city from whence they came out."—Alex. Murray's Gram., p. 135. "Respecting ellipses, some grammarians differ strangely in their ideas; and from thence has arisen a very whimsical diversity in their systems of grammar."—Author. "What am I and from whence? i.e. what am I, and from whence am I?"—Jaudon's Gram., p. 171.

UNDER NOTE V.—THE ADVERB HOW.

"It is strange how a writer, so accurate as Dean Swift, should have stumbled on so improper an application of this particle."—Blair's Rhet., p. 112. "Ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us," &c.—Acts, xv, 7. "Let us take care how we sin; i.e. that we do not sin."—Priestley's Gram., p. 135. "We see by these instances, how prepositions may be necessary to connect those words, which in their signification are not naturally connected."—Murray's Gram., p. 118. "Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?"—2 Cor., xiii, 5. "That thou mayest know how that the earth is the Lord's."—Exod., ix, 29.

UNDER NOTE VI.—WHEN, WHILE, OR WHERE.

"Ellipsis is when one or more words are wanting, to complete the sense."—Adam's Gram., p. 235; Gould's, p. 229; B. F. Fisk's Greek Gram.. 184. "Pleonasm is when a word more is added than is absolutely necessary to express the sense."—Same works. "Hyst~eron prot~eron is when that is put in the former part of the sentence, which, according to the sense, should be in the latter."—Adam, p. 237; Gould, 230. "Hysteron proteron, n. A rhetorical figure when that is said last which was done first."—Webster's Dict. "A Barbarism is when a foreign or strange word is made use of."—Adam's Gram., p. 242; Gould's, 234. "A Solecism is when the rules of Syntax are transgressed."—Iidem, ib. "An Idiotism is when the manner of expression peculiar to one language is used in another."—Iid., ib. "Tautology is when we either uselessly repeat the same words, or repeat the same sense in different words."—Adam, p. 243; Gould, 238. "Bombast is when high sounding words are used without meaning, or upon a trifling occasion."—Iid., ib. "Amphibology is when, by the ambiguity of the construction, the meaning may be taken in two different senses."—Iid., ib. "Irony is when one means the contrary of what is said."—Adam, p. 247; Gould, 237. "The Periphrasis, or Circumlocution, is when several words are employed to express what might be expressed in fewer."—Iid., ib. "Hyperbole is when a thing is magnified above the truth,"—Adam, p. 249; Gould, 240. "Personification is when we ascribe life, sentiments, or actions, to inanimate beings, or to abstract qualities."—Iid., ib. "Apostrophe, or Address, is when the speaker breaks off from the series of his discourse, and addresses himself to some person present or absent, living or dead, or to inanimate nature, as if endowed with sense and reason."—Iid., ib. "A Simile or Comparison is when the resemblance between two objects, whether real or imaginary, is expressed in form."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 223. "Simile, or Comparison, is when one thing is illustrated or heightened by comparing it to another."—Adam's Gram., p. 250; Gould's, 240. "Antithesis, or Opposition, is when things contrary or different are contrasted, to make them appear in the more striking light."—Iid., ib. "Description, or Imagery, [is] when any thing is painted in a lively manner, as if done before our eyes."—Adam's Gram., p. 250. "Emphasis is when a particular stress is laid on some word in a sentence."—Ib. "Epanorthosis, or Correction, is when the speaker either recalls or corrects what he had last said."—Ib. "Paralepsis, or Omission, is when one pretends to omit or pass by, what he at the same time declares."—Ib. "Incrementum, or Climax in sense, is when one member rises above another to the highest."—Ib., p. 251. "A Metonymy is where the cause is put for the effect, or the effect for the cause; the container for the thing contained; or the sign for the thing signified."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 223. "Agreement is when one word is like another in number, case, gender, or person."—Frost's Gram., p. 43; Greenleaf's, 32. "Government is when one word causes another to be in some particular number, person, or case."—Webster's Imp. Gram., p. 89; Greenleaf's, 32; Frost's, 43. "Fusion is while some solid substance is converted into a fluid by heat."—B. "A Proper Diphthong is where both the Vowels are sounded together; as, oi in Voice, ou in House."— Fisher's Gram., p. 10. "An Improper Diphthong is where the Sound of but one of the two Vowels is heard; as e in People."—Ib., p. 11.

UNDER NOTE VII.—THE ADVERB NO FOR NOT.

"An adverb is joined to a verb to show how, or whether or no, or when, or where one is, does, or suffers."—Buchanan's Syntax, p. 62. "We must be immortal, whether we will or no."—Maturin's Sermons, p. 33. "He cares not whether the world was made for Caesar or no."—American Quarterly Review. "I do not know whether they are out or no."—Byron's Letters. "Whether it can be proved or no, is not the thing."—Butler's Analogy, p. 84. "Whether or no he makes use of the means commanded by God."—Ib.,, p. 164. "Whether it pleases the world or no, the care is taken."— L'Estrange's Seneca, p. 5. "How comes this to be never heard of nor in the least questioned, whether the Law was undoubtedly of Moses's writing or no?"—Bp. Tomline's Evidences, p. 44. "Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not."—John, ix, 25. "Can I make men live, whether they will or no?"—Shak.

"Can hearts, not free, be try'd whether they serve Willing or no, who will but what they must?"—Milton, P. L.

UNDER NOTE VIII.—OF DOUBLE NEGATIVES.

"We need not, nor do not, confine the purposes of God."—Bentley. "I cannot by no means allow him that."—Idem. "We must try whether or no we cannot increase the Attention by the Help of the Senses."—Brightland's Gram., p. 263. "There is nothing more admirable nor more useful."—Horne Tooke, Vol. i, p. 20. "And what in no time to come he can never be said to have done, he can never be supposed to do."—Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 345. "No skill could obviate, nor no remedy dispel, the terrible infection."—Goldsmith's Greece, i, 114. "Prudery cannot be an indication neither of sense nor of taste."—Spurzheim, on Education, p. 21. "But that scripture, nor no other, speaks not of imperfect faith."—Barclay's Works, i, 172. "But this scripture, nor none other, proves not that faith was or is always accompanied with doubting."—Ibid. "The light of Christ is not nor cannot be darkness."—Ib., p. 252. "Doth not the Scripture, which cannot lie, give none of the saints this testimony?"—Ib., p. 379. "Which do not continue, nor are not binding."—Ib., Vol. iii. p. 79. "It not being perceived directly no more than the air."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 331. "Let's be no Stoics, nor no stocks, I pray."—Shak., Shrew. "Where there is no marked nor peculiar character in the style."—Blair's Rhet., p. 175. "There can be no rules laid down, nor no manner recommended."—Sheridan's Lect., p. 163.

"Bates. 'He hath not told his thought to the king?' K. Henry. 'No; nor it is not meet he should.'"—Shak.

UNDER NOTE IX.—EVER AND NEVER.

"The prayer of Christ is more than sufficient both to strengthen us, be we never so weak; and to overthrow all adversary power, be it never so strong."—Hooker. "He is like to have no share in it, or to be ever the better for it."—Law and Grace, p. 23. "In some parts of Chili, it seldom or ever rains."—Willetts's Geog. "If Pompey shall but never so little seem to like it."—Walker's Particles, p. 346. "Latin: 'Si Pompeius paulum modo ostenderit sibi placere.' Cic. i, 5."—Ib. "Though never such a power of dogs and hunters pursue him."—Walker, ib. "Latin: 'Quamlibet magna canum et venantium urgente vi.' Plin. l. 18, c. 16."—Ib. "Though you be never so excellent."—Walker, ib. "Latin: 'Quantumvis licet excellas.' Cic. de Amic."—Ib. "If you do amiss never so little."—Walker, ib. "Latin: 'Si tantillum peccassis.' Plaut. Rud. 4, 4"—Ib. "If we cast our eyes never so little down."—Walker, ib. "Latin: 'Si tantulum oculos dejecerimus.' Cic. 7. Ver."—Ib. "A wise man scorneth nothing, be it never so small or homely."—Book of Thoughts, p. 37. "Because they have seldom or ever an opportunity of learning them at all."—Clarkson's Prize-Essay, p. 170. "We seldom or ever see those forsaken who trust in God."—Atterbury.

"Where, playing with him at bo-peep, He solved all problems, ne'er so deep."—Hudibras.

UNDER NOTE X.—OF THE FORM OF ADVERBS.

"One can scarce think that Pope was capable of epic or tragic poetry; but within a certain limited region, he has been outdone by no poet."—Blair's Rhet., p. 403. "I, who now read, have near finished this chapter."—Harris's Hermes, p. 82. "And yet, to refine our taste with respect to beauties of art or of nature, is scarce endeavoured in any seminary of learning."—Kames, El. of Crit., Vol. i, p. viii. "By the Numbers being confounded, and the Possessives wrong applied, the Passage is neither English nor Grammar."—Buchanan's Syntax, p. 123. "The letter G is wrong named jee."—Creighton's Dict., p. viii. "Last; Remember that in science, as in morals, authority cannot make right, what, in itself, is wrong."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 194. "They regulate our taste even where we are scarce sensible of them."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 96. "Slow action, for example, is imitated by words pronounced slow."—Ib., ii, 257. "Sure, if it be to profit withal, it must be in order to save."—Barclay's Works, i, 366. "Which is scarce possible at best."—Sheridan's Elocution, p. 67. "Our wealth being near finished."—HARRIS: Priestley's Gram., p. 80.



CHAPTER IX.—CONJUNCTIONS.

The syntax of Conjunctions consists, not (as L. Murray and others erroneously teach) in "their power of determining the mood of verbs," or the "cases of nouns and pronouns," but in the simple fact, that they link together such and such terms, and thus "mark the connexions of human thought."—Beattie.

RULE XXII.—CONJUNCTIONS.

Conjunctions connect words, sentences, or parts of sentences: as, "Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we are brethren."—Gen., xiii, 8.

"Ah! if she lend not arms as well as rules. What can she more than tell us we are fools?"—Pope.

EXCEPTION FIRST.

The conjunction that sometimes serves merely to introduce a sentence which is made the subject or the object of a finite verb;[433] as, "That mind is not matter, is certain."

"That you have wronged me, doth appear in this."—Shak.

"That time is mine, O Mead! to thee, I owe."—Young.

EXCEPTION SECOND.

When two corresponding conjunctions occur, in their usual order, the former should generally be parsed as referring to the latter, which is more properly the connecting word; as, "Neither sun nor stars in many days appeared."—Acts, xxvii, 20. "Whether that evidence has been afforded [or not,] is a matter of investigation."—Keith's Evidences, p. 18.

EXCEPTION THIRD. Either, corresponding to or, and neither, corresponding to nor or not, are sometimes transposed, so as to repeat the disjunction or negation at the end of the sentence; as, "Where then was their capacity of standing, or his either?"—Barclay's Works, iii, 359. "It is not dangerous neither."—Bolingbroke, on Hist., p. 135. "He is very tall, but not too tall neither."—Spect., No. 475.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE XXII.

OBS. 1.—Conjunctions that connect particular words, generally join similar parts of speech in a common dependence on some other term. Hence, if the words connected be such as have cases, they will of course be in the same case; as, "For me and thee"—Matt., xvii, 27. "Honour thy father and thy mother."—Ib., xviii, 19. Here the latter noun or pronoun is connected by and to the former, and governed by the same preposition or verb. Conjunctions themselves have no government, unless the questionable phrase "than whom" may be reckoned an exception. See Obs. 17th below, and others that follow it.

OBS. 2.—Those conjunctions which connect sentences or clauses, commonly unite one sentence or clause to an other, either as an additional assertion, or as a condition, a cause, or an end, of what is asserted. The conjunction is placed between the terms which it connects, except there is a transposition, and then it stands before the dependent term, and consequently at the beginning of the whole sentence: as, "He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second."—Heb., x, 9. "That he may establish the second, he taketh away the first."

OBS. 3.—The term that follows a conjunction, is in some instances a phrase of several words, yet not therefore a whole clause or member, unless we suppose it elliptical, and supply what will make it such: as, "And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, AS to the Lord, AND not unto men"—Col., iii, 23. If we say, this means, "as doing it to the Lord, and not as doing it unto men," the terms are still mere phrases; but if we say, the sense is, "as if ye did it to the Lord, and not as if ye did it unto men," they are clauses, or sentences. Churchill says, "The office of the conjunction is, to connect one word with an other, or one phrase with an other."—New Gram., p. 152. But he uses the term phrase in a more extended sense than I suppose it will strictly bear: he means by it, a clause, or member; that is, a sentence which forms a part of a greater sentence.

OBS. 4.—What is the office of this part of speech, according to Lennie, Bullions, Brace, Hart, Hiley, Smith, M'Culloch, Webster, Wells, and others, who say that it "joins words and sentences together," (see Errors on p. 434 of this work,) it is scarcely possible to conceive. If they imagine it to connect "words" on the one side, to "sentences" on the other; this is plainly absurd, and contrary to facts. If they suppose it to join sentence to sentence, by merely connecting word to word, in a joint relation; this also is absurd, and self-contradictory. Again, if they mean, that the conjunction sometimes connects word with word, and sometimes, sentence with sentence; this sense they have not expressed, but have severally puzzled their readers by an ungrammatical use of the word "and." One of the best among them says, "In the sentence, 'He and I must go,' the word and unites two sentences, and thus avoids an unnecessary repetition; thus instead of saying, 'He must go,' 'I must go,' we connect the words He, I, as the same thing is affirmed of both, namely, must go."—Hiley's Gram., p. 53. Here is the incongruous suggestion, that by connecting words only, the conjunction in fact connects sentences; and the stranger blunder concerning those words, that "the same thing is affirmed of both, namely, [that they] must go." Whereas it is plain, that nothing is affirmed of either: for "He and I must go," only affirms of him and me, that "we must go." And again it is plain, that and here connects nothing but the two pronouns; for no one will say, that, "He and I must go together" is a compound sentence, capable of being resolved into two simple sentences; and if, "He and I must go," is compound because it is equivalent to, "He must go, and I must go;" so is, "We must go," for the same reason, though it has but one nominative and one verb. "He and I were present," is rightly given by Hiley as an example of two pronouns connected together by and. (See his Gram., p. 105.) But, of verbs connected to each other, he absurdly supposes the following to be examples: "He spake, and it was done."—"I know it, and I can prove it."—"Do you say so, and can you prove it?"—Ib. Here and connects sentences, and not particular words.

OBS. 5.—Two or three conjunctions sometimes come together; as, "What rests, but that the mortal sentence pass?"—Milton. "Nor yet that he should offer himself often."—Heb., ix, 25. These may be severally parsed as "connecting what precedes and what follows," and the observant reader will not fail to notice, that such combinations of connecting particles are sometimes required by the sense; but, since nothing that is needless, is really proper, conjunctions should not be unnecessarily accumulated: as, "But AND if that evil servant say in his heart," &c.—Matt., xxiv, 48. Greek, "[Greek: Ean de eipae o kakos donlos ekeinos,]" &c. Here is no and. "But AND if she depart."—1 Cor., vii, 11. This is almost a literal rendering of the Greek, "[Greek: Ean de kai choristhae.]"—yet either but or and is certainly useless. "In several cases," says Priestley, "we content ourselves, now, with fewer conjunctive particles than our ancestors did [say used]. Example: 'So AS that his doctrines were embraced by great numbers.' Universal Hist., Vol. 29, p. 501. So that would have been much easier, and better."—Priestley's Gram., p. 139. Some of the poets have often used the word that as an expletive, to fill the measure of their verse; as,

"When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept."—Shakspeare.

"If that he be a dog, beware his fangs."—Id.

"That made him pine away and moulder, As though that he had been no soldier."—Butler's Poems, p. 164.

OBS. 6.—W. Allen remarks, that, "And is sometimes introduced to engage our attention to a following word or phrase; as, 'Part pays, and justly, the deserving steer.' [Pope.] 'I see thee fall, and by Achilles' hand.' [Id.]"—Allen's E. Gram., p. 184. The like idiom, he says, occurs in these passages of Latin: "'Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit.' Virg. 'Mors et fugacem persequitur virum.' Hor."—Allen's Gram., p. 184. But it seems to me, that and and et are here regular connectives. The former implies a repetition of the preceding verb: as, "Part pays, and justly pays, the deserving steer."—"I see thee fall, and fall by Achilles' hand." The latter refers back to what was said before: thus, "Perhaps it will also hereafter delight you to recount these evils."—"And death pursues the man that flees." In the following text, the conjunction is more like an expletive; but even here it suggests an extension of the discourse then in progress: "Lord, and what shall this man do?"—John, xxi, 21. "[Greek: Kurie, outos de ti;]"—"Domine, hic autem quid?"—Beza.

OBS. 7.—The conjunction as often unites words that are in apposition, or in the same case; as, "He offered himself AS a journeyman."—"I assume it AS a fact."—Webster's Essays, p. 94. "In an other example of the same kind, the earth, AS a common mother, is animated to give refuge against a father's unkindness."—Kames, El. of Crit., Vol ii, p. 168. "And then to offer himself up AS a sacrifice and propitiation for them."—Scougal, p. 99. So, likewise, when an intransitive verb takes the same case after as before it, by Rule 6th; as, "Johnson soon after engaged AS usher in a school."—L. Murray. "He was employed AS usher." In all these examples, the case that follows as, is determined by that which precedes. If after the verb "engaged" we supply himself, usher becomes objective, and is in apposition with the pronoun, and not in agreement with Johnson: "He engaged himself as usher." One late writer, ignorant or regardless of the analogy of General Grammar, imagines this case to be an "objective governed by the conjunction as," according to the following rule: "The conjunction as, when it takes the meaning of for, or in the character of, governs the objective case; as, Addison, as a writer of prose, is highly distinguished."—J. M. Putnam's Gram., p. 113. S. W. Clark, in his grammar published in 1848, sets as in his list of prepositions, with this example: "'That England can spare from her service such men as HIM.'—Lord Brougham."—Clark's Practical Gram., p. 92. And again: "When the second term of a Comparison of equality is a Noun, or Pronoun, the Preposition AS is commonly used. Example—'He hath died to redeem such a rebel as ME.'—Wesley." Undoubtedly, Wesley and Brougham here erroneously supposed the as to connect words only, and consequently to require them to be in the same case, agreeably to OBS. 1st, above; but a moment's reflection on the sense, should convince any one, that the construction requires the nominative forms he and I, with the verbs is and am understood.

OBS. 8.—The conjunction as may also be used between an adjective or a participle and the noun to which the adjective or participle relates; as, "It does not appear that brutes have the least reflex sense of actions AS distinguished from events; or that will and design, which constitute the very nature of actions AS such, are at all an object of their perception."—Butler's Analogy, p. 277.

OBS. 9.—As frequently has the force of a relative pronoun, and when it evidently sustains the relation of a case, it ought to be called, and generally is called, a pronoun, rather than a conjunction; as, "Avoid such as are vicious,"—Anon. "But as many as received him," &c.—John, i, 12. "We have reduced the terms into as small a number as was consistent with perspicuity and distinction."—Brightland's Gram., p. ix. Here as represents a noun, and while it serves to connect the two parts of the sentence, it is also the subject of a verb. These being the true characteristics of a relative pronoun, it is proper to refer the word to that class. But when a clause or a sentence is the antecedent, it is better to consider the as a conjunction, and to supply the pronoun it, if the writer has not used it; as, "He is angry, as [it] appears by this letter." Horne Tooke says, "The truth is, that AS is also an article; and (however and whenever used in English) means the same as It, or That, or Which."—Diversions of Purley, Vol. i, p. 223. But what definition he would give to "an article," does not appear.

OBS. 10.—In some examples, it seems questionable whether as ought to be reckoned a pronoun, or ought rather to be parsed as a conjunction after which a nominative is understood; as, "He then read the conditions as follow."—"The conditions are as follow."—Nutting's Gram., p. 106. "The principal evidences on which this assertion is grounded, are as follow."—Gurney's Essays, p. 166. "The Quiescent verbs are as follow."—Pike's Heb. Lex., p. 184. "The other numbers are duplications of these, and proceed as follow"—Dr. Murray's Hist. of Lang., Vol. ii, p. 35. "The most eminent of the kennel are bloodhounds, which lead the van, and are as follow."—Steele, Tattler, No. 62. "His words are as follow."—Spect., No. 62. "The words are as follow."—Addison, Spect., No. 513. "The objections that are raised against it as a tragedy, are as follow."—Gay, Pref. to What d' ye call it. "The particulars are as follow."—Bucke's Gram., p. 93. "The principal interjections in English are as follow."—Ward's Gram., p. 81. In all these instances, one may suppose the final clause to mean, "as they here follow;"—or, supposing as to be a pronoun, one may conceive it to mean, "such as follow." But some critical writers, it appears, prefer the singular verb, "as follows" Hear Campbell: "When a verb is used impersonally, it ought undoubtedly to be in the singular number, whether the neuter pronoun be expressed or understood: and when no nominative in the sentence can regularly be construed with the verb, it ought to be considered as impersonal. For this reason, analogy as well as usage favour [say favours] this mode of expression, 'The conditions of the agreement were as follows;' and not 'as follow.' A few late writers have inconsiderately adopted this last form through a mistake of the construction. For the same reason we ought to say, 'I shall consider his censures so far only as concerns my friend's conduct;' and not 'so far as concern.'"—Philosophy of Rhet., p. 229. It is too much to say, at least of one of these sentences, that there is no nominative with which the plural verb can be regularly construed. In the former, the word as may be said to be a plural nominative; or, if we will have this to be a conjunction, the pronoun they, representing conditions, may be regularly supplied, as above. In the latter, indeed, as is not a pronoun; because it refers to "so far," which is not a noun. But the sentence is bad English; because the verb concern or concerns is improperly left without a nominative. Say therefore, 'I shall consider his censures so far only as they concern my friend's conduct;'—or, 'so far only as my friend's conduct is concerned.' The following is an other example which I conceive to be wrong; because, with an adverb for its antecedent, as is made a nominative: "They ought therefore to be uttered as quickly as is consistent with distinct articulation."—Sheridan's Elocution, p. 76. Say rather, "They ought therefore to be uttered with as much rapidity as is consistent with distinct articulation."

OBS. 11.—Lindley Murray was so much puzzled with Tooke's notion of as, and Campbell's doctrine of the impersonal verb, that he has expressly left his pupils to hesitate and doubt, like himself, whether one ought to say "as follows" or "as follow," when the preceding noun is plural; or—to furnish an alternative, (if they choose it,) he shows them at last how they may dodge the question, by adopting some other phraseology. He begins thus: "Grammarians differ in opinion, respecting the propriety of the following modes of expression: 'The arguments advanced were nearly as follows;' 'the positions were, as appears, incontrovertible.'"— Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 146. Then follows a detail of suggestions from Campbell and others, all the quotations being anonymous, or at least without definite references. Omitting these, I would here say of the two examples given, that they are not parallel instances. For, "as follows," refers to what the arguments were,—to the things themselves, considered plurally, and immediately to be exhibited; wherefore the expression ought rather to have been, "as follow," or, "as they here follow." But, "as appears" means "as it appears," or "as the case now appears;" and one of these plain modes of expression would have been much preferable, because the as is here evidently nothing but a conjunction.

OBS. 12.—"The diversity of sentiment on this subject," says L. Murray, "and the respectability of the different opponents, will naturally induce the readers to pause and reflect, before they decide."—Octavo Gram., p. 147. The equivalent expressions by means of which he proposes to evade at last the dilemma, are the following: "The arguments advanced were nearly such as follow;"—"The arguments advanced were nearly of the following nature;"—"The following are nearly the arguments which were advanced;"— "The arguments advanced were nearly those which follow:"—"These, or nearly these, were the arguments advanced;"—"The positions were such as appear incontrovertible;"—"It appears that the positions were incontrovertible;" —"That the positions were incontrovertible, is apparent;"—"The positions were apparently incontrovertible;"—"In appearance, the positions were incontrovertible."—Ibid. If to shun the expression will serve our turn, surely here are ways enough! But to those who "pause and reflect" with the intention to decide, I would commend the following example: "Reconciliation was offered, on conditions as moderate as were consistent with a permanent union."—Murray's Key, under Rule 1. Here Murray supposes "was" to be wrong, and accordingly changes it to "were," by the Rule, "A verb must agree with its nominative case in number and person." But the amendment is a pointed rejection of Campbell's "impersonal verb," or verb which "has no nominative;" and if the singular is not right here, the rhetorician's respectable authority vouches only for a catalogue of errors. Again, if this verb must be were in order to agree with its nominative, it is still not clear that as, is, or ought to be, the nominative; because the meaning may perhaps be better expressed thus:—"on conditions as moderate as any that were consistent with a permanent union."

OBS. 13.—A late writer expresses his decision of the foregoing question thus: "Of all the different opinions on a grammatical subject, which have arisen in the literary world, there scarcely appears one more indefensible than that of supposing as follows to be an impersonal verb, and to be correctly used in such sentences as this. 'The conditions were as follows.' Nay, we are told that, "A few late writers have adopted this form, 'The conditions were as follow,' inconsiderately;" and, to prove this charge of inconsiderateness, the following sentence is brought forward: 'I shall consider his censure [censures is the word used by Campbell and by Murray] so far only as concern my friend's conduct.' which should be, it is added, 'as concerns, and not as concern.' If analogy, simplicity, or syntactical authority, is of any value in our resolution of the sentence, 'The conditions were as follows,' the word as is as evident a relative as language can afford. It is undoubtedly equivalent to that or which, and relates to its antecedent those or such understood, and should have been the nominative to the verb follow; the sentence, in its present form, being inaccurate. The second sentence is by no means a parallel one. The word as is a conjunction; and though it has, as a relative, a reference to its antecedent so, yet in its capacity of a mere conjunction, it cannot possibly be the nominative case to any verb. It should be, 'it concerns.' Whenever as relates to an adverbial antecedent; as in the sentence, 'So far as it concerns me,' it is merely a conjunction; but when it refers to an adjective antecedent; as in the sentence, 'The business is such as concerns me;' it must be a relative, and susceptible of case, whether its antecedent is expressed or understood; being, in fact, the nominative to the verb concerns."—Nixon's Parser, p. 145. It will be perceived by the preceding remarks, that I do not cite what is here said, as believing it to be in all respects well said, though it is mainly so. In regard to the point at issue, I shall add but one critical authority more: "'The circumstances were as follows.' Several grammarians and critics have approved this phraseology: I am inclined, however, to concur with those who prefer 'as follow.'"—Crombie, on Etym. and Synt., p. 388.

OBS. 14.—The conjunction that is frequently understood; as, "It is seldom [that] their counsels are listened to."—Robertson's Amer., i, 316. "The truth is, [that] grammar is very much neglected among us."—Lowth's Gram., Pref., p. vi. "The Sportsman believes [that] there is Good in his Chace [chase.]"—Harris's Hermes, p. 296.

"Thou warnst me [that] I have done amiss; I should have earlier looked to this."—Scott.

OBS. 15.—After than or as, connecting the terms of a comparison, there is usually an ellipsis of some word or words. The construction of the words employed may be seen, when the ellipsis is supplied; as, "They are stronger than we" [are.]—Numb., xiii. 31. "Wisdom is better than weapons of war" [are.]—Eccl., ix, 18. "He does nothing who endeavours to do more than [what] is allowed to humanity."—Dr. Johnson. "My punishment is greater than [what] I can bear."—Gen., iv, 13. "Ralph gave him more than I" [gave him.]—Churchill's Gram., p. 351. "Ralph gave him more than [he gave] me."—Ibid. "Revelation, surely, was never intended for such as he" [is.]—Campbell's Four Gospels, p. iv. "Let such as him sneer if they will."—Liberator, Vol. ix, p. 182. Here him ought to be he, according to Rule 2d, because the text speaks of such as he is or was. "'You were as innocent of it as me:' 'He did it as well as me.' In both places it ought to be I: that is, as I was, as I did."—Churchill's Gram., p. 352.