The Grammar of English Grammars Part 141

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 _repet.i.tion_ 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_ a.s.sisting 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 nonent.i.ty, 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 G.o.ds, _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 princ.i.p.al 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, a.s.sented 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 pa.s.sage 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 const.i.tute 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 circ.u.mstances.' 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 G.o.d, 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 pa.s.sages.' _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.' _c.o.xe_. 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 _nonent.i.ty_. 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 circ.u.mstances. 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_, x.x.xii, 9. "Will he esteem thy riches? _no, not_ gold, _nor_ all the forces of strength."--_Job_, x.x.xiv. 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_, x.x.xii, 12. "How much less to him that accepteth _not_ the persons of princes _nor_ regardeth the rich more than the poor."--_Job_, x.x.xiv, 19. "This day is holy unto the Lord your G.o.d; 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 repet.i.tion 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_, x.x.xiv, 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 pa.s.sage 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 a.s.sertions.

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 p.r.o.nounce "_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 p.r.o.noun, 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 p.r.o.nouncing 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 p.r.o.noun, 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 pa.s.ses 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 lat.i.tude 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. Ill.u.s.tration: "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_," a.n.a.logous 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 p.r.o.noun.

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 a.s.sertion, 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 p.r.o.nouns 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 Pa.r.s.er_, 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 p.r.o.noun_," 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 cla.s.ses of adverbs, I have admitted and shown, that _here, there_, and _where_, have sometimes the nature of p.r.o.nouns, especially in such compounds as _hereof, thereof, whereof_; but in this instance, I see not what advantage there is in calling _there_ a "p.r.o.noun:" we have just as much reason to call _here_ and _where_ p.r.o.nouns--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_"--_a.n.a.lytical 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 subst.i.tuting 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 pa.s.s 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 ident.i.ty, 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 n.o.body 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_."