Abbildungen der Seite

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 :



[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

*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 man 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

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]



[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

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'.

[ocr errors]

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]
[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. Bu the double ference 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

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

[ocr errors]

of any


clause anything beyond the fact that the nations were stimulated to still greater improvements; the attempt to keep apart the raw produce, and the industry, is merely a useless burden.

'In this single instance, the successors of Cæsar and Augustus were persuaded to follow the example of the former rather than the precept of the latter'. Similar objections apply here. The reader is presented with two subjects, but he is not told to keep the order firmly in his mind, so as to recover each in its turn by that cue. “Succeeding emperors were persuaded to follow the example of Cæsar rather than the precept of Augustus.'

This couple is still more awkward when the subjects are in different grammatical places. The figure Apostrophe

• closely resembles passive Personification. The only difference is that in the former the writer addresses the dead or absent; whereas in the latter an address is made to an abstraction or to some inanimate object.' A clear case for repeating the



No vegetables should be stored in the same room with peas, for the latter are sure to acquire the flavour of the former.' Repetition would be preferable here. It is to be remarked, as a general principle of style, that the refinement of not repeating leading terms is meant for polished and artistic composition, and is not called for either in science or in business, in both of which precision is the prime requisite. •Vegetables should not be stored with peas; the vegetables will flavour the peas'. There is nothing against taste in the repetition. By a more elegant condensation, we might say—'Peas will contract the flavour of vegetables stored in the same room'.

The following is from De Quincey. "The rebels had already been permitted to possess themselves of the county of Wexford in its whole northern division, Ross and Duncan. non only excepted; of which the latter was not liable to be captured by coup de main, and the other was saved by the procrastination of the rebels.' Here, too, we are not warned on the mention of Ross and Duncannon, that we must re

« ZurückWeiter »