Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

6

6

[ocr errors]

member them in their order, and at once recall Duncannon on the spur of the word 'latter'.

• The other', meaning the one left, here refers to the first: it takes the place of 'the former'.

Compare with these instances Macaulay's practice. • James had, during the last year of his reign, been even more bated by the Tories than by the Whigs; for to the Whigs he was only an enemy, and to the Tories he had been a faithless and thankless friend.'

Our translation of the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican is an interesting example of our mode of reference for a twofold subject. “Two men went up into the teinple to pray, the one a Pharisee and the other a Publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus

And the Publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven.

I tell you this man went down to his house justified rather than the other'. First the subjects are introduced by their special designations, along with the correlatives 'the one' and 'the other', which serve to indicate a contrast, and to warn the reader that they are to be kept distinctly separate. On the first recurrence of the subjects, the names are repeated; on the second occasion, 'this ’ is used for the second of the two, being the nearest ; 'the other' is used for the first. The same use of the other' occurred in the sentence from De Quincey; and both show that 'the other’ may apply to the first in order, if the second has been already singled out. The following old paraphrase of the passage now quoted shows the more usual practice in making 'the one and the other 'stand for the first and the second', or the former and the latter'. • Did two go up to the temple to pray ? Oh rather say the one went up to brag, the other to pray, The one the nearer to the altar trod,

The other nearer to the altar's God.' In easy cases, I should prefer this form.

Next to it, in my judgment, is 'first' and 'second'. Ferrier says—“A system of philosophy is bound by two main requisitions-it ought to be true, and it ought to be reasoned. Of these obligations,

[ocr errors]

6

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

measured amount of the objects named; the accurate way being by exact numeration, or numerals. For extensive grounds' we might have 'grounds occupying a hundred acres', or other numerical estimate.

Such adjectives should not be called adjectives of quality ; they are adjectives of quantity, yet not numerals, definite or indefinite. They express unnumbered quantity. The ends of grammar are best served by placing them in a distinct class.

It is usual to reckon among Adjectives of Quantity, the words no, none. Excepting that they are used with nouns, they do not possess the characters common to adjectives. They do not limit the class noun by setting up a smaller select class; they, in fact, abolish the subject altogether; 'no house’ is the negative or exclusion of all houses.

By Dr. Latham, 'no' is regarded as an Article; but it is in its nature equally repugnant to the nature of an article.

I prefer to regard it as the Negative Adverb, made to assume the form of an Adjective for a particular convenience. The etymology is traced thus : ne + ân not + one; coalescing in Old English into 'nân', 'non'-'none'; which last is cut down to 'no'. Compare 'an' and 'a'; the 'n' being dropped before a consonant. (See Morris, • Accidence of English Language', p. 145, § 229.)

There is a kind of negation or denial that the negative adverb does not meet, namely, universal denial; as may be shown thus. For a singular subject-John', 'the moon denial is easy and sure : ‘John is not here', 'the moon is not visible'. But when the subject is universal, the denial by this form is ineffective : ‘all the men are not here' is not a universal denial; it allows that some men may be here, it merely declares that some at least are wanting. In short, it is only a partial denial. If we mean to negative the presence of all the men, to deny that any man is present, we need some other construction. We may attain the end by finding a word that is the negative of the predicate all the men are absent'; 'all the heavenly bodies are invisible'. The more usual way is to prefix 'no'to the subject, thus :

a

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

man

‘No men are present'; ' no heavenly bodies are visible'. The negative by thus preceding the noun, comes into the position of the adjective, but we may still regard it as playing the part of an adverb.

This is the type of universal denial, and it is the most emphatic form of negation to be found in the language. Like all our strong effects, it is apt to be abused by being overdone. 'He has no home' is a superfluous variety of ‘he has not a home', which puts the negative word to its proper function.

Our plural noun, without 'all', has assumed the meaning of universality; hence we obtain a universal denial by the adverb in its proper place and character. •The men are not present', 'the stars are not visible', 'metals do not occur in the newer rocks'. This is the mild form of universal denial; and, for ordinary purposes, it is quite sufficient. The other form should be reserved for occasions where there is need to deny with energy. “Men have never seen God' is substantially a universal denial. The strong form is “No hath seen God at any time'. Equally emphatic, without any license, would have been, “Never has any man seen God'. The energy consists in placing the negative word first in the clause.

*No mere man, since the fall, is able in this life perfectly to keep the commandments of God': 'Since the fall, mere men are unable in this life-'.

'No golf balls coming over these walls will be returned'. Golf balls—will not be returned'.

No dogs admitted' would be more tolerable in a form common enough—no admittance to dogs'. It would be sufficient, and therefore preferable, to say-Dogs (are) not admitted'.

• We shall get no farther relaxation of the rules'; 'The rules will not be farther relaxed for us'.

* No degree of knowledge attainable by man is able to set him above the want of hourly assistance: and therefore no man should think it unnecessary to learn those arts by which friendship may be gained'. 'Any degree of knowledge

6

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

6

attainable by man is unable to set him above the need of hourly assistance; hence every one should think it not unnecessary-'.

No knight in England could match king Henry VIII. in the tournament'. 'In the tournament Henry was not matched (un-matched) by any knight in England'.

'I have none in my possession': 'I do not possess one'.

The PRONOUN ADJECTIVES are a well-marked sub-division; they are distinguished from the rest grammatically. The mere circumstance of originating in the Pronouns might not be enough of itself to constitute a distinction; words variously originating may have the same use. But like the Pronouns themselves, these words are few in number, and of incessant recurrence; so that the grammarian is justified in explaining what is the meaning of each as an individual.

Of these Pronominal or Pronoun Adjectives, the most important are the Demonstratives 'this', 'that'. These are, properly speaking, Adjectives; they are used with Nouns as limiting words. They differ from Adjectives of quality in the manner of the limitation. An adjective of quality

old men'- makes a new and select class with a new character 'old', which is for the most part a fixed or permanent feature of the narrow or select class. The demonstrative 'that' limits a common noun, by selecting an individual or individuals in a particular situation for the time being'that man', the man now in our presence, or the man just mentioned.

For the important function of referring distinctively to two subjects (or more) already mentioned, we have a series of adjective couples, including the two demonstratives. They are

That-This,
The one—The other,
The former—The latter,
The first-The-second,

The first named-The last named or mentioned.
By writers generally, the couple .former and latter' is

[ocr errors]

more used than any of the rest. In my judgment, the other forms are in many instances preferable. From an extensive examination of cases, I am inclined to believe that the reference by ‘former and latter' is frequently very obscure. I subjoin a few examples, selecting first from Gibbon, who makes great use of the construction.

“We have computed the inhabitants, and contemplated the public works of the Roman Empire. The observation of the number and greatness of its cities will serve to confirm the former and multiply the latter'.. A most perplexed reference. The antecedent to "former' should have been * (we have given) a computation of the inhabitants'; while 'mul. tiply the latter' refers simply to public works. There is, moreover, the very common fault of such references-too great a distance from the subjects. Nothing short of repeating the subjects themselves, or giving a various wording of them, would enable a reader easily to follow the passage. The second sentence might run thus-'A consideration of the number and the greatness of the cities belonging to the Empire, will confirm our statement of the population, and enhance our estimate of the public works'.

* The productions of happier climates and the industry of civilised nations were introduced into the west; and the natives were encouraged to multiply the former and improve the latter.' In this case, 'the one and the other', a more homely English form, or the first and the second', would answer equally well. But the double reference itself is of questionable propriety in such cases. It is very artificial and clumsy, if not slovenly. We are introduced to two subjects, but are not warned to keep in mind the precise order that they are given in; presently, we come upon words that direct us to recall first one and then the other, in the exact order; the hardship being aggravated by the absence of any marked natural sequence. Further the suggestion of the idea of contrast is not inconsiderable; a contrast, however, that turns out, on examination, to be merely a contrast of position, or one of statement. Nor, in this special case, is it necessary for the historian's purpose to indicate in the second

« ZurückWeiter »