The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (free ebook reader .txt) 📕

"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