A Handbook of the English Language Part 58

3. ----Revenge back on itself recoils.

Let it. I reck not, _so_ it _light_ well aimed.--J. MILTON.

4. _If_ this _be_ the case.

5. _Although_ my house _be_ not so with G.o.d.--_Old Testament._

6. He shall not eat of the holy thing _unless_ he _wash_ his flesh with water.--_Old Testament._

Expressions like _except_ and _unless_ are equally conditional with words like _if_ and _provided that_, since they are equivalent to _if--not_.

Expressions like _though_ and _although_ are peculiar. They join propositions, of which the one is a _prima facie_ reason against the existence of the other: and this is the conditional element. In the sentence, _if the children be so badly brought-up, they are not to be trusted_, the _bad bringing-up_ is the reason for their being _unfit to be trusted_; and, as far as the expression is concerned, _is admitted to be so_. The only uncertainty lies in the question as to the degree of the badness of the education. The inference from it is unequivocal.

But if, instead of saying _if_, we say _although_, and omit the word _not_, so that the sentence run _although the children be so badly brought-up they are to be trusted_, we do two things: we indicate the general relation of cause and effect that exists between _bad bringing-up_ and _unfitness for being trusted_, but we also, at the same time, take an exception to it in the particular instance before us. These remarks have been made for the sake of showing the extent to which words like _though_, &c., are conditional.

It must be remembered, however, that conjunctions, like the ones lately quoted, do not govern subjunctive moods because they are conditional, but because, in the particular condition which they accompany, there is an element of uncertainty.

-- 509. This introduces a fresh question. Conditional conjunctions are of two sorts:--

1. Those which express a condition as an actual fact, and one admitted as such by the speaker.

2. Those which express a condition as a possible fact, and one which the speaker either does not admit, or admits only in a qualified manner.

Since _the children_ are _so badly brought-up_, &c.--This is an instance of the first construction. The speaker admits as an actual fact the _bad bringing-up of the children_.

If _the children_ be _so badly brought-up_, &c.--This is an instance of the second construction. The speaker admits as a possible (perhaps, as a probable) fact the _bad bringing-up of the children_: but he does not adopt it as an indubitable one.

-- 510. Now, if every conjunction had a fixed unvariable meaning, there would be no difficulty in determining whether a condition was absolute, and beyond doubt, or possible, and liable to doubt. But such is not the case.

_Although_ may precede a proposition which is admitted as well as one which is doubted.

a. Although _the children_ are, &c.

b. Although _the children_ be, &c.

_If_, too, may precede propositions wherein there is no doubt whatever implied: in other words it may be used instead of _since_.

In some languages this interchange goes farther than in others; in the Greek, for instance, such is the case with e?, to a very great extent indeed.

Hence we must look to the meaning of the sentence in general, rather than to the particular conjunction used.

It is a philological fact that _if_ may stand instead of _since_.

It is also a philological fact that when it does so it should be followed by the indicative mood.

This is written in the way of ill.u.s.tration. What applies to _if_ applies to other conjunctions as well.

-- 511. As a point of practice, the following method of determining the amount of doubt expressed in a conditional proposition is useful:--

Insert, immediately after the conjunction, one of the two following phrases,--(1.) _as is the case_; (2.) _as may or may not be the case_. By ascertaining which of these two supplements expresses the meaning of the speaker, we ascertain the mood of the verb which follows.

When the first formula is the one required, there is no element of doubt, and the verb should be in the indicative mood. _If_ (_as is the case_), _he _is_ gone, I must follow him_.

When the second formula is the one required, there _is_ an element of doubt, and the verb should be in the subjunctive mood. _If_ (_as may or may not be the case_) _he _be_ gone, I must follow him_.

-- 512. The use of the word _that_ in expressions like _I eat that I may live_, &c., is a modification of the subjunctive construction, that is conveniently called _potential_. It denotes that one act is done for the sake of supplying the _power_ or opportunity for the performance of another.

The most important point connected with the powers of _that_ is the so-called _succession of tenses_.

-- 513. _The succession of tenses._--Whenever the conjunction _that_ expresses intention, and consequently connects two verbs, the second of which takes place _after_ the first, the verbs in question must be in the same tense.

I _do_ this _that_ I _may_ gain by it I _did_ this _that_ I _might_ gain by it.

In the Greek language this is expressed by a difference of mood; the subjunctive being the construction equivalent to _may_, the optative to _might_. The Latin idiom coincides with the English.

A little consideration will show that this rule is absolute. For a man _to be doing_ one action (in present time) in order that some other action may _follow_ it (in past time) is to reverse the order of cause and effect. To do anything in A.D. 1851, that something may result from it in 1850 is a contradiction; and so it is to say _I _do_ this_ that _I _might_ gain by it_.

The reasons against the converse construction are nearly, if not equally cogent. To have done anything at any _previous_ time in order that a _present_ effect may follow, is, _ipso facto_, to convert a past act into a present one, or, to speak in the language of the grammarian, to convert an aorist into a perfect. To say _I _did_ this_ that _I may gain by it_, is to make, by the very effect of the expression, either _may_ equivalent to _might_, or _did_ equivalent to _have done_.

_I _did_ this_ that _I _might_ gain_.

_I _have done_ this_ that _I _may_ gain_.

-- 514. _Disjunctives._--Disjunctives (_or_, _nor_) are of two sorts, real and nominal.

_A king or queen always rules in England_. Here the disjunction is real; _king_ or _queen_ being different names for different objects. In all _real_ disjunctions the inference is, that if one out of two (or more) individuals (or cla.s.ses) do not perform a certain action, the other does.

_A sovereign or supreme ruler always rules in England_. Here the disjunction is nominal; _sovereign_ and _supreme governor_ being different names for the same object. In all nominal disjunctives the inference is, that if an agent (or agents) do not perform a certain action under one name, he does (or they do) it under another.

Nominal disjunctives are called by Harris _sub_disjunctives.

In the English language there is no separate word to distinguish the nominal from the real disjunctive. In Latin, _vel_ is considered by Harris to be disjunctive, _sive_ subdisjunctive. As a periphrasis, the combination _in other words_ is subdisjunctive.

Both nominal and real disjunctives agree in this,--whatever may be the number of nouns which they connect, the construction of the verb is the same as if there were but one--Henry, _or_ John, _or_ Thomas, _walks_ (not _walk_); the sun, _or_ solar luminary, _shines_ (not _shine_). The disjunctive _isolates_ the subject, however much it may be placed in juxtaposition with other nouns.

CHAPTER XXVII.

THE SYNTAX OF THE NEGATIVE.

-- 515. When the verb is in the infinitive mood, the negative precedes it.--_Not to advance is to retreat_.

When the verb is not in the infinitive mood, the negative follows it.--_He advanced not_. _I cannot_.

This rule is absolute. It only _seems_ to precede the verb in such expressions as _I do not advance_, _I cannot advance_, _I have not advanced_, &c. However, the words _do_, _can_, and _have_, are no infinitives; and it consequently follows them. The word _advance_ is an infinitive, and it consequently precedes it. Wallis's rule makes an equivalent statement, although differently. "Adverbium negandi _not_ (non) verbo postponitur (nempe auxiliari primo si adsit; aut si non adsit auxiliare, verbo princ.i.p.ali): aliis tamen orationis partibus praefigi solet."--P. 113.

That the negative is rarely used, except with an auxiliary, in other words, that the presence of a negative converts a simple form like _it burneth not_ into the circ.u.mlocution it _does not burn_, is a fact in the practice of the English language. The syntax is the same in either expression.

-- 516. What may be called the _distribution_ of the negative is pretty regular in English. Thus, when the word _not_ comes between an indicative, imperative, or subjunctive mood and an infinitive verb, it almost always is taken with the word which it _follows_--_I can not eat_ may mean either _I can--not eat_ (i.e., _I can abstain_), or _I can not--eat_ (i.e., _I am unable to eat_); but, as stated above, it _almost_ always has the latter signification.