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 characrer, 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:

or.

'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, 1. 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 '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. 331.

"And

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. 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.* 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, ist 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."-P's., Iviii, 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.'t I have had never so much * This assertion of Churchill's is very far from the truth. I am confident that the latter construction occurs, even among reputable authors, ten times as often as the former can be found in any English books.-G. BROWN. + Should not the Doctor have said, "are there more," since "more than one" must needs be plural? Sce Obs. 10th on Rule 17th.

This degree of truth is impossible, and therefore not justly supposable. We have also a late American grammarian who gives a similar interpretation: "Though never so justly deserving of it.' Comber. Never is

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, ‘Í 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.* 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 coe'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 onclike,) when it relates to a noun or a pronoun, is a definitivo 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 tho 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 uso 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 here an emphatic adverb; as if it were said, so justly as was never. Though well authorized, it is disapproved by most grammarians of the present day; and the word ever is used instead of never."-Felch's Comp. Gram., p. 107. The text here cited is not necessarily bad English as it stands; but, if the commenter has not mistaken its meaning, as well as its construction, it ought certainly to be, "Though everso justly deserving of it."-" So justly as was never," is a positive degree that is not imaginable; and what is this but an absurdity?

* Since this remark was written, I have read an other grammar, (that of the "Rev. Charles Adams,'') in which the author sets down among "the more frequent improprietics committed, in conversation, Ary one' for either, and ⚫nary one' for neither."—Adams's System of Gram., p. 116. Eli Gilbert too betrays the same ignoAmong his "Improper Pronunciations," he puts down “Nar” and “Ar"," and for “Corrections" of them, gives "neither" and "either."-Gilbert's Catechetical Gram., p. 128. But these latter terms, either and neither, are applicable only to one of two things, and cannot be used where many are spoken of; as,

rance.

"Stealing her soul with many vows of faith,
And never a true one."-Shakspeare.

What sense would there be in expounding this to mean, "And neither a true one?" So some men both write and interpret their mother tongue erroneously through ignorance. But these authors condemn the errors which they here falsely suppose to be common. What is yet more strange, no less a critic than Prof. William C. Fowler, has lately exhibited, without disapprobation, one of these literary blunders, with sundry localisms, (often descending to slang,) which, he says, are mentioned by "Mr. Bartlett, in his valuable dictionary [Dictionary] of Americanisms." The brief example, which may doubtless be understood to speak for both phrases and both authors, is this: "ARY-either."-Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo, N. Y., 1850, p. 92.

others, the syntax of an adverb centres mainly in the suggestion, that, "If's propriety and force depend on it's position."-1b., 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.

66

OBS. 28. The term not but is equivalent to two negatives that make an affirmative; as "Nat 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 neg ative 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, Inder. "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.

44

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 prac tice much to be commended, though often adopted by men that pretend to write grammatically: 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, Cæsar, &c. ONLY præ in composition before a vowel is commonly short."-Adams's Gram., p. 254; Gould's, 246.

as,

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 nomina tive; as, 'There is a person at the door." "-Murray's Gram., p. 197; Ingersoll's, 205; Greenicaf 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.

as,

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, of 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." "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."—Ana ytical Gram., p. 234. But an adverb of the latter kind may be used with the word there, and I perceive

66

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."