CHAPTER XXII.

EgoetBalbussustulimusmanus.TuetBalbussustulistismanus.

EgoetBalbussustulimusmanus.

TuetBalbussustulistismanus.

Now, in English, the plural form is the same for all three persons. Hence we sayI and you are friends,you and I are friends,I and he are friends, &c., so that for the practice of language, the question as to the relative dignity of the three persons is a matter of indifference.

Nevertheless, itmayoccur even in English. Whenever two or more pronouns of different persons, and of thesingularnumber, follow each otherdisjunctively, the question of concord arises.I or you,—you orhe,—he or I. I believe that, in these cases, the rule is as follows:—

1. Whenever the wordseitherorneitherprecede the pronouns, the verb is in the third person.Either you or I is in the wrong;neither you nor I is in the wrong.

2. Whenever the disjunctive is simple (i.e.unaccompanied with the wordeitherorneither) the verb agrees with thefirstof the two pronouns.

I(orhe)amin the wrong.He(orI)isin the wrong.Thou(orhe)artin the wrong.He(orthou)isin the wrong.

I(orhe)amin the wrong.

He(orI)isin the wrong.

Thou(orhe)artin the wrong.

He(orthou)isin the wrong.

Now, provided that they are correct, it is clear that the English language knows nothing about the relative degrees of dignity between these three pronouns; since its habit is to make the verb agree with the one which is placed first—whatever may be the person. I am strongly inclined to believe that the same is the case in Latin; in which case (in the sentenceego et Balbus sustulimus manus)sustulimusagrees, in person, withego, not because the first person is the worthiest, but because it comes first in the proposition,

§ 489. In the Chapter on the Impersonal Verbs, it is stated that the construction ofme-thinksis peculiar.

This is because in Anglo-Saxon the wordþincan=seem. Henceme-thinksisφαίνεταί μοι, ormihi videtur, andmeis adativecase, not anaccusative.

Theþencan=think, was, in Anglo-Saxon, a different word.

ON THE VOICES OF VERBS.

§ 490. In English there is neither a passive nor a middle voice.

The following couplet from Dryden's "Mac Flecnoe" exhibits a construction which requires explanation:—

An ancient fabric, raised to inform the sight,There stood of yore, and Barbicanit hight.

An ancient fabric, raised to inform the sight,

There stood of yore, and Barbicanit hight.

Here the wordhight=was called, and seems to present an instance of the participle being used in a passive sense without the so-called verb substantive. Yet it does no such thing. The word is no participle at all; but a simple preterite. Certain verbs arenaturallyeither passive or active, as one of two allied meanings may predominate.To be calledis passive; so is,to be beaten. But,to bear as a nameis active; so is,to take a beating. The word,hight, is of the same class of verbs with the Latinvapulo; and it is the same as the Latin word,cluo.—Barbican cluit=Barbican audivit=Barbican it hight.

ON THE AUXILIARY VERBS.

§ 491. The auxiliary verbs, in English, play a most important part in the syntax of the language. They may be classified upon a variety of principles. The following, however, are all that need here be applied.

A.Classification of auxiliaries according to their inflection or non-inflectional powers.—Inflectional auxiliaries are those that may either replace or be replaced by an inflection. Thus—I am struck= the Latinferior, and the Greekτύπτομαι. These auxiliaries are in the same relation to verbs that prepositions are to nouns. The inflectional auxiliaries are,—

1.Have; equivalent to an inflection in the way of tense—I have bitten=mo-mordi.

2.Shall; ditto.I shall call=voc-abo.

3.Will; ditto.I will call=voc-abo.

4.May; equivalent to an inflection in the way of mood.I am come that I may see=venio ut vid-eam.

5.Be; equivalent to an inflection in the way of voice.To be beaten=verberari,τύπτεσθαι.

6.Am,art,is,are; ditto. Also equivalent to an inflection in the way of tense.I am moving=move-o.

7.Was,were; ditto, ditto.I was beaten=ἐ-τύφθην.I was moving=move-bam.

Do,can,must, andlet, are non-inflectional auxiliaries.

B.Classification of auxiliaries according to theirnon-auxiliary significations.—The power of the wordhavein the combination ofI have a horseis clear enough. It means possession. The power of the same word in the combinationI have beenis not so clear; nevertheless it is a power which has grown out of the idea of possession. This shows that the power of a verb as an auxiliary may be a modification of its original power;i.e., of the power it has in non-auxiliary constructions. Sometimes the difference is very little: the wordlet, inlet us go, has its natural sense of permission unimpaired. Sometimes it is lost altogether.Canandmayexist only as auxiliaries.

1. Auxiliary derived from the idea of possession—have.

2. Auxiliaries derived from the idea of existence—be,is,was.

3. Auxiliary derived from the idea of future destination, dependent upon circumstances external to the agent—shall. There are etymological reasons for believing thatshallis no present tense, but a perfect.

4. Auxiliary derived from the idea of future destination, dependent upon the volition of the agent—will.Shallis simply predictive;willis predictive and promissive as well.

5. Auxiliary derived from the idea of power, dependent upon circumstances external to the agent—may.

6. Auxiliary derived from the idea of power, dependent upon circumstances internal to the agent—can.Mayis simply permissive;canis potential. In respect to the idea of power residing in the agent being the cause which determines a contingent action,canis in the same relation tomayaswillis toshall.

"Mayetcan, cum eorum præteritis imperfectis,mightetcould, potentiam innuunt: cum hoc tamen discrimine:mayetmightvel de jurevel saltem de rei possibilitate, dicuntur, atcanetcouldde viribus agentis."—Wallis, p. 107.

7. Auxiliary derived from the idea of sufferance—let.

8. Auxiliary derived from the idea of necessity—must.

"Mustnecessitatem innuit. Debeo, oportet, necesse est urere,I must burn. Aliquando sed rarius in præterito diciturmust(quasi exmust'dseumust'tcontractum). Sic, si de præterito dicatur,he must(seumust't)be burnt, oportebat uri seu necesse habuit ut ureretur."—Wallis, 107.

9. Auxiliary derived from the idea of action—do.

C.Classification of auxiliary verbs in respect to their mode of construction.—Auxiliary verbs combine with others in three ways.

1.With participles.—a) With the present, or active, participle—I am speaking:b) With the past, or passive, participle—I am beaten,I have beaten.

2.With infinitives.—a) With the objective infinitive—I can speak:b) With the gerundial infinitive—I have to speak.

3.With both infinitives and participles.—I shall have done,I mean to have done.

D.Auxiliary verbs may be classified according to their effect.—Thus—havemakes the combination in which it appears equivalent to a tense;beto a passive form;mayto a sign of mood, &c.

This sketch of the different lights under which auxiliary verbs may be viewed, has been written for the sake of illustrating, rather than exhausting, the subject.

§ 492. The combination of the auxiliary,have, with the past participle requires notice. It is, here, advisable to make the following classifications.

1. The combination with the participle of atransitiveverb.—I have ridden the horse;thou hast broken the sword;he has smitten the enemy.

2. The combination with the participle of anintransitiveverb,—I have waited;thou hast hungered;he has slept.

3. The combination with the participle of the verb substantive,I have been;thou hast been;he has been.

It is by examples of the first of these three divisions that the true construction is to be shown.

For an object of any sort to be in the possession of a person, it must previously have existed. If I possess a horse, that horse must have had a previous existence.

Hence, in all expressions likeI have ridden a horse, there are two ideas, a past idea in the participle, and a present idea in the word denoting possession.

For an object of any sort, affected in a particular manner, to be in the possession of a person, it must previously have been affected in the manner required. If I possess a horse that has been ridden, the riding must have taken place before I mention the fact of the ridden horse being in my possession; inasmuch as I speak of it as a thing already done,—the participle,ridden, being in the past tense.

I have ridden a horse=I have a horse ridden=I have a horse as a ridden horse, or (changing the gender and dealing with the wordhorseas a thing)I have a horse as a ridden thing.

In this case the syntax is of the usual sort. (1)Have=own=habeo=teneo; (2)horseis the accusative caseequum; (3)riddenis a past participle agreeing either withhorse, orwith a word in apposition with it understood.

Mark the words in italics. The wordriddendoes not agree withhorse, since it is of the neuter gender.Neither if we saidI have ridden the horses, would it agree withhorses; since it is of the singular number.

The true construction is arrived at by supplying the wordthing.I have a horse as a ridden thing=habeo equum equitatum(neuter). Here the construction is the same astriste lupus stabulis.

I have horses as a ridden thing=habeo equos equitatum(singular, neuter). Here the construction is—

"Triste ... maturis frugibus imbres,Arboribus venti, nobis Amaryllidos iræ."

"Triste ... maturis frugibus imbres,

Arboribus venti, nobis Amaryllidos iræ."

or in Greek—

Δεινὸν γυναιξὶν αἱ δι' ὠδίνων γοναί.

The classical writers supply instances of this use ofhave.Compertum habeo, milites, verba viris virtutem non addere =I have discovered=I am in possession of the discovery. Quæ cum ita sint, satis de Cæsare hocdictum habeo.

The combination ofhavewith an intransitive verb is irreducible to the idea of possession: indeed, it is illogical. InI have waited, we cannot make the idea expressed by the wordwaitedthe object of the verbhaveorpossess. The expression has become a part of language by means of the extension of a false analogy. It is an instance of an illegitimate imitation.

The combination ofhavewithbeenis more illogical still, and is a stronger instance of the influence of an illegitimate imitation. In German and Italian, where evenintransitiveverbs are combined with the equivalents to the Englishhave(haben, andavere), the verb substantive is not so combined; on the contrary, the combinations are

Italian;io sono stato=I am been.German;ich bin gewesen=ditto.

Italian;io sono stato=I am been.

German;ich bin gewesen=ditto.

which is logical.

§ 493.I am to speak.—Three facts explain this idiom.

1. The idea ofdirection towards an objectconveyed by the dative case, and by combinations equivalent to it.

2. The extent to which the ideas of necessity, obligation, or intention are connected with the idea ofsomething that has to be done, orsomething towards which some action has a tendency.

3. The fact that expressions like the one in question historically represent an original dative case, or its equivalent; sinceto speakgrows out of the Anglo-Saxon formto sprecanne, which, although called a gerund, is really a dative case of the infinitive mood.

When Johnson thought that, in the phrasehe is to blame, the wordblamewas a noun, if he meant a noun in the way thatculpais a noun, his view was wrong. But if he meant a noun in the way thatculpare,ad culpandum, are nouns, it was right.

§ 494.I am to blame.—This idiom is one degree more complex than the previous one; sinceI am to blame=I am to be blamed. As early, however, as the Anglo-Saxon period the gerunds were liable to be used in a passive sense:he is to lufigenne= nothe is to love, buthe is to be loved.

The principle of this confusion may be discovered by considering thatan object to be blamed, isan object for some one to blame,an object to be lovedisan object for some one to love.

§ 495.I am beaten.—This is a present combination, and it is present on the strength of the verbam, not on the strength of the participlebeaten, which is præterite.

The following table exhibits theexpedientson the part of the different languages of the Gothic stock,since the loss of the proper passive form of the Mœso-Gothic.

THE SYNTAX OF ADVERBS.

§ 496. The syntax of the adverb is simpler than that of any other part of speech, excepting, perhaps, that of the adjective.

Adverbs have no concord.

Neither have they any government. Theyseem, indeed, to have it, when they are in the comparative or superlative degree; but it is merely apparent. Inthis is better than that, the wordthatis governed neither bybetternor bythan. It is not governed at all. It is a nominative case; the subject of a separate proposition.This is better (i.e., more good) than that is good.Even if we admit such an expression ashe is stronger than meto be good English, there is no adverbial government.Than, if it governmeat all, governs it as a preposition.

The position of an adverb is, in respect to matters of syntax, pre-eminently parenthetic;i.e., it may be omitted without injuring the construction.He is fighting—now; he was fighting—then; he fights—bravely; I am almost—tired, &c.

§ 497. By referring to the Chapter on the Adverbs, we shall find that the neuter adjective is frequently converted into an adverb by deflection. As any neuter adjective may be so deflected, we may justify such expressions asfull(forfully) asconspicuous(forconspicuously), andpeculiar(forpeculiarly)bad grace, &c. We are not, however, bound to imitate everything that we can justify.

§ 498. The termination-lywas originally adjectival. At present it is a derivational syllable by which we can convert an adjective into an adverb:brave, brave-ly. When, however, the adjective ends in-lyalready, the formation is awkward.I eat my daily breadis unexceptionable English;I eat my bread dailyis exceptionable. One of two things must here take place: the two syllableslyare packed into one (the full expression beingdai-li-ly), or else the construction is that of a neuter adjective deflected.

Adverbs are convertible.The then men=οἱ νῦν βρότοι, &c. This will be seen more clearly in the Chapter on Conjunctions.

§ 499. It has been remarked that in expressions likehe sleeps the sleep of the righteous, the construction is adverbial. So it is in expressions likehe walked a mile, it weighs a pound. The ideas expressed bymileandpoundare not the names of anything that serves as either object or instrument to the verb. They only denote themannerof the action, and define the meaning of the verb.

§ 500.From whence,from thence.—This is an expression which, if it have not taken root in our language, is likely to do so. It is an instance of excess of expression in the way of syntax; the-cedenoting directionfroma place, and the preposition doing the same. It is not so important to determine what this constructionis, as to suggest what it isnot. It isnotan instance of an adverb governed by a preposition. If the two words be dealt with as logically separate,whence(orthence) must be a noun =which place(orthatplace); just asfrom then till now=from that time to this. But if (which is the better view) the two words be dealt with as one (i.e., as an improper compound) the prepositionfromhas lost its natural power, and become the element of an adverb.

ON PREPOSITIONS.

§ 501. All prepositions govern an oblique case. If a word ceases to do this, it ceases to be a preposition. In the first of the two following sentences the wordupis a preposition, in the second an adverb.

1.I climbed up the tree.2.I climbed up.

1.I climbed up the tree.

2.I climbed up.

All prepositions in English, precede the noun which they govern.I climbed up the tree, neverI climbed the tree up. This is a matter not of government, but of collocation. It is the case in most languages; and, from the frequency of its occurrence, the termpre-position(orpre-fix) has originated. Nevertheless, it is by no means a philological necessity. In many languages the prepositions arepost-positive, following their noun.

§ 502. No preposition, in the present English, governs a genitive case. This remark is made, because expressions like thepart of the body = pars corporis,—a piece of the bread = portio panis, make it appear as if the prepositionofdid so. The true expression is, that the prepositionoffollowed by an objective case is equivalent in many instances, to the genitive case of the classical languages.

ON CONJUNCTIONS.

§ 503. A conjunction is a part of speech which connectspropositions,—the day is bright, is one proposition.The sun shines, is another.The day is brightbecausethe sun shinesis a pair of propositions connected by the conjunction,because.

From this it follows, that whenever there is a conjunction, there are two subjects, two copulas, and two predicates:i.e., two propositions in all their parts.

But this may be expressed compendiously.The sun shines, and the moon shinesmay be expressed by thesun and moon shine.

Nevertheless, however compendious may be the expression, there are always two propositions wherever there is one conjunction. A part of speech that merely combines two words is a preposition,—the sun along with the moon shines.

It is highly important to remember that conjunctions connect propositions.

It is also highly important to remember that many double propositions may be expressed so compendiously as to look like one. When this takes place, and any question arises as to the construction, they must be exhibited in their fully expanded form,i.e., the second subject, the second predicate, and the second copula must be supplied. This can always be done from the firstproposition,—he likes you better than me=he likes you better than he likes me. The compendious expression of the second proposition is the first point of note in the syntax of conjunctions.

§ 504. The second point in the syntax of conjunctions is the fact of their great convertibility. Most conjunctions have been developed out of some other part of speech.

The conjunction of comparison,than, is derived from the adverb of time,then: which is derived from the accusative singular of the demonstrative pronoun.

The conjunction,that, is derived also from a demonstrative pronoun.

The conjunction,therefore, is a demonstrative pronoun + a preposition.

The conjunction,because, is a substantive governed by a preposition.

One and the same word, in one and the same sentence, may be a conjunction or preposition, as the case may be.

All fled but John.—If this meanall fledexceptJohn, the wordbutis a preposition, the wordJohnis an accusative case, and the proposition is single. If instead ofJohn, we had a personal pronoun, we should sayall fled buthim.

All fled but John.—If this meanall fled but John did not fly, the wordbutis a conjunction, the wordJohnis a nominative case, and the propositions are two in number. If, instead ofJohn, we had a personal pronoun, we should say,all fled buthe.

From the fact of the great convertibility of conjunctions it is often necessary to determine whether a word be a conjunction or not.If it be a conjunction, it cannot govern a case. If it govern a case it is no conjunctionbut a preposition.A conjunction cannot govern a case, for the following reasons,—the word that follows itmustbe the subject of the second proposition, and as such, a nominative case.

§ 505. The third point to determine in the syntax of conjunctions is the certainty or uncertainty in the mind of the speaker as to the facts expressed by the propositions which they serve to connect.

1. Each proposition may contain a certain, definite, absolute fact—the day is clearbecausethe sun shines. Here there is neither doubt nor contingency of either theday being clear, or of thesun shining.

Of two propositions one may be the condition of the other—the day will be clearifthe sun shine. Here, although it is certain thatif the sun shine the day will be clear, there is no certainty ofthe sun shining. Of the two propositions one only embodies a certain fact, and that is certain only conditionally.

Now an action, wherein there enters any notion of uncertainty, or indefinitude, and is at the same time connected with another action, is expressed, not by the indicative mood, but by the subjunctive.If the sunshine (notshines)the day will be clear.

Simple uncertainty will not constitute a subjunctive construction,—I am, perhaps,in the wrong.

Neither will simple connection.—I am wrong, becauseyou are right.

But, the two combined constitute the construction in question,—if Ibewrong, you are right.

Now, a conjunction that connects two certain propositions may be said to govern an indicative mood.

And a conjunction that connects an uncertain proposition with a certain one, may be said to govern a subjunctive mood.

The government of mood is the only form of government of which conjunctions are capable.

§ 506. Previous to the question of the government of conjunctions in the way of mood, it is necessary to notice certain points of agreement between them and the relative pronouns; inasmuch as, in many cases, the relative pronoun exerts the same government, in the way of determining the mood of the verb, as the conjunction.

Between the relative pronouns and conjunctions in general there is this point of connection,—both join propositions. Wherever there is a relative, there is a second proposition. So there is wherever there is a conjunction.

Between certain relative pronouns and those particular conjunctions that govern a subjunctive mood there is also a point of connection. Both suggest an element of uncertainty or indefinitude. This the relative pronouns do, through the logical elements common to them and to the interrogatives: these latter essentially suggesting the idea of doubt. Wherever the person, or thing, connected with an action, and expressed by a relative is indefinite, there is room for the use of a subjunctive mood. Thus—"he that troubled you shall bear his judgment,whosoeverhebe."

§ 507. By considering the nature of such words aswhen, their origin as relatives on the one hand, and their conjunctional character on the other hand, we are prepared for finding a relative element in words liketill,until,before,as long as, &c. These can all be expanded into expressions likeuntil the time when,during the time when, &c. Hence, in an expression likeseek out his wickedness till thoufind (notfindest)none, the principleof the construction is nearly the same as inhe that troubled you, &c., orvice versâ.[64]

§ 508. In most conditional expressions the subjunctive mood should follow the conjunction. All the following expressions are conditional.

1.ExceptIbeby Silvia in the night,There is no music in the nightingale.—Shakspeare.

1.ExceptIbeby Silvia in the night,

There is no music in the nightingale.—Shakspeare.

2. Let us go and sacrifice to the Lord our God,lesthefalluponuswith pestilence.—Old Testament.

3. ——Revenge back on itself recoils.Let it. I reck not,soitlightwell aimed.—J. Milton.4.Ifthisbethe case.

3. ——Revenge back on itself recoils.Let it. I reck not,soitlightwell aimed.—J. Milton.

3. ——Revenge back on itself recoils.

Let it. I reck not,soitlightwell aimed.—J. Milton.

4.Ifthisbethe case.

5.Althoughmy housebenot so with God.—Old Testament.6. He shall not eat of the holy thingunlesshewashhis flesh with water.—Old Testament.

5.Althoughmy housebenot so with God.—Old Testament.

6. He shall not eat of the holy thingunlesshewashhis flesh with water.—Old Testament.

Expressions likeexceptandunlessare equally conditional with words likeifandprovided that, since they are equivalent toif—not.

Expressions likethoughandalthoughare peculiar. They join propositions, of which the one is aprimâ faciereason 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, thebad bringing-upis the reason for their beingunfit 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 sayingif, we sayalthough, and omit the wordnot, so that the sentence runalthough 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 betweenbad bringing-upandunfitness 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 likethough, &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.

Sincethe childrenareso badly brought-up, &c.—This is an instance of the first construction. The speaker admits as an actual fact thebad bringing-up of the children.

Ifthe childrenbeso badly brought-up, &c.—This is an instance of the second construction. The speaker admits as a possible (perhaps, as a probable) fact thebad 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, orpossible, and liable to doubt. But such is not the case.

Althoughmay precede a proposition which is admitted as well as one which is doubted.

a.Althoughthe childrenare, &c.b.Althoughthe childrenbe, &c.

a.Althoughthe childrenare, &c.

b.Althoughthe childrenbe, &c.

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

In some languages this interchange goes farther than in others; in the Greek, for instance, such is the case withεἰ, 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 thatifmay stand instead ofsince.

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 illustration. What applies toifapplies 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),heisgone, I must follow him.

When the second formula is the one required, thereisan element of doubt, and the verb should be in the subjunctive mood.If(as may or may not be the case)hebegone, I must follow him.

§ 512. The use of the wordthatin expressions likeI eat that I may live, &c., is a modification of the subjunctive construction, that is conveniently calledpotential. It denotes that one act is done for the sake of supplying thepoweror opportunity for the performance of another.

The most important point connected with the powers ofthatis the so-calledsuccession of tenses.

§ 513.The succession of tenses.—Whenever the conjunctionthatexpresses intention, and consequently connects two verbs, the second of which takes placeafterthe first, the verbs in question must be in the same tense.

IdothisthatImaygain by itIdidthisthatImightgain by it.

IdothisthatImaygain by it

IdidthisthatImightgain by it.

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

A little consideration will show that this rule is absolute. For a manto be doingone action (in present time) in order that some other action mayfollowit (in past time) is to reverse the order of cause and effect. To do anything inA.D.1851, that something may result from it in 1850 is a contradiction; and so it is to sayIdothisthatImightgain by it.

The reasons against the converse construction are nearly, if not equally cogent. To have done anything at anyprevioustime in order that apresenteffect may follow, is,ipso facto, to convert a past act into a present one, or, to speak in the language of the grammarian, to convertan aorist into a perfect. To sayIdidthisthatI may gain by it, is to make, by the very effect of the expression, eithermayequivalent tomight, ordidequivalent tohave done.

IdidthisthatImightgain.Ihave donethisthatImaygain.

IdidthisthatImightgain.

Ihave donethisthatImaygain.

§ 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;kingorqueenbeing different names for different objects. In allrealdisjunctions the inference is, that if one out of two (or more) individuals (or classes) do not perform a certain action, the other does.

A sovereign or supreme ruler always rules in England. Here the disjunction is nominal;sovereignandsupreme governorbeing 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 Harrissubdisjunctives.

In the English language there is no separate word to distinguish the nominal from the real disjunctive. In Latin,velis considered by Harris to be disjunctive,sivesubdisjunctive. As a periphrasis, the combinationin other wordsis 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,orJohn,orThomas,walks(notwalk); the sun,orsolar luminary,shines(notshine). The disjunctiveisolatesthe subject, however much it may be placed in juxtaposition with other nouns.

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 onlyseemsto precede the verb in such expressions asI do not advance,I cannot advance,I have not advanced, &c. However, the wordsdo,can, andhave, are no infinitives; and it consequently follows them. The wordadvanceis an infinitive, and it consequently precedes it. Wallis's rule makes an equivalent statement, although differently. "Adverbium negandinot(non) verbo postponitur (nempe auxiliari primo si adsit; aut si non adsit auxiliare, verbo principali): aliis tamen orationis partibus præfigi 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 likeit burneth notinto the circumlocution itdoes 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 thedistributionof the negative is pretty regular in English. Thus, when the wordnotcomes between an indicative, imperative, or subjunctive mood and an infinitive verb, it almostalways is taken with the word which itfollows—I can not eatmay mean eitherI can—not eat(i.e.,I can abstain), orI can not—eat(i.e.,I am unable to eat); but, as stated above, italmostalways has the latter signification.

But notalways. In Byron's "Deformed Transformed" we find the following lines:—

Back to Index Next