2. The undoubtedly future character of the so-called aorist imperative. To give an order to do a thing in past time is a philological contradiction. Forms like Bλéfov must be future. Though èç and rí0 differ in power, they both mean an action subsequent to, or, at any rate, simultaneous with the order given; certainly not one anterior to it.

§ 541. Be may stand for may be. In this case the præterite is not were but might be. The sentence, what care I how fair the lady be, if she be not fair to her admirer? is accurate. Here be may be. But, what cared I how fair the lady were, if she were not fair to her admirer? is inaccurate. It ought to run thus,-what cared I how fair the lady might be, if she were not fair to her admirer ?*

§ 542. Disjunctives.—Disjunctives (or, nor) are of two sorts,

real and nominal.

A king or queen always rules in England. Here the disjunction is real; king or queen being different names for different objects. In all real disjunctions 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; sovereign and supreme governor being 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 Harris, subdisjunctives.

* It is almost unnecessary to state that the sentence quoted in the text is really a beautiful couplet of Wither's poetry transprosed. It was advisable to do this, for the sake of guarding against the effect of the rhyme. To have written

What care I how fair she is

If she be not fair to me?

would have made the grammar seem worse than it really was, by disappointing the reader of a rhyme. On the other hand, to have written

What care I how fair she were,

If she were not kind as fair?

would have made the grammar seem better than it really was, by supplying one.

In the English language there is no separate word to distinguish the nominal from the real disjunctive. In Latin, vel is considered by Harris to be disjunctive, sive subdisjunctive.

periphrasis the combination in other words is subdis

junctive.

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 oneHenry or John, or Thomas, walks (not walk); the sun, or solar luminary, shines (not shine). The disjunctive isolates the subject, however much it may be placed in juxtaposition with other nouns.

§ 543. Either, neither.—Many disjunctives imply an alternative. If it be not this person (or thing) that performs a certain action (or exists in a certain state) it is some other. If a person (or thing) do not perform a certain action (or exist in a certain state), under one name, he (or it) does so under another. This alternative is expressed by the word either.

When the word either is connected immediately with the copula of a proposition, it is, if not a true conjunction, at least a part of a conjunctional periphrasis.—This either is or is

not so.

When it belongs more to one of the terms of a proposition than to the copula, it is a pronoun,-Either I or you is in the wrong. It is either you or I.

I use the words, part of a conjunctional periphrasis, because the full conjunction is either + or (or neither + nor); the essential conjunctions being the latter words. To these, either (or neither) is superadded, indicating the manner in which the disjunction expressed by or (or nor) takes place ; i. e. they show that it takes place in the manner of an alternative. Now, this superadded power is rather adverbial than conjunctional.

§ 544. From the pronominal character of the word either, when it forms part of a term, and from the power of the disjunctive, or, in isolating the subject of the verb, combined with an assumption which will be explained hereafter, we get at the principle of certain rules for doubtful constructions.

In expressions like either you or I is in the wrong, we must consider either not only as a pronoun, but as the leading pronoun of the proposition; a pronoun of which or I is an explanation; and, finally, as the pronoun which determines the person of the verb. Either you or I is wrong = one of us (you or I) is wrong.

Then, as to expressions like I, or you, am in the wrong. Here, I is the leading pronoun, which determines the person of the verbs; the words, or you, being parenthetic, and subordinate.

§ 545. Will this principle justify such expressions as either they or we is in the wrong?

Or will it justify such expressions as either he or they is in the wrong?

Or will it justify such expressions as I or they am in the wrong? In all which sentences one pronoun is plural.

Perhaps not. The assumption that has been just alluded to, as helping to explain certain doubtful constructions, is the following, viz. that in cases of apposition, disjunction, and complex terms, the first word is the one which determines the character of the sentence wherein it occurs. This is a practice of the English language, which, in the opinion of the present writer, nothing but a very decided preponderance of a difference in person, gender, or number, can overrule. Such may fairly be considered to be the case in the three examples just adduced; especially as there is also the secondary influence of the conjunctional character of the word either. Thus, although we say,

One of two parties, they or we, is in the wrong.

We also say,

Either they or we are in the wrong.

As for the other two expressions, they are in the same predicament, with an additional reason for the use of the plural. It contains the singular. The chief object of the present remarks has been less to explain details than to give due prominence to the following leading principles.

1. That either (or neither) is essentially singular in number. 2. That it is, like any common noun, of the third person.

3. That it is pronominal where it is in apposition with another noun.

4. That when it is the first word of the proposition it determines the concord of the verb, unless its character of a noun of the singular number and third person be disguised by the prominence of some plural form, or some pronoun of the first or second person in the latter part of the term.

5. That in a simple disjunctive proposition (i. e. one where either does not occur) all nouns are subordinate to the first.

§ 546. I believe that the use of either is limited to real disjunctives; in other words, that we can say either a king or a queen always reigns in England, but that we cannot say either a sovereign or a supreme ruler always reigns in England.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

THE SYNTAX OF THE NEGATIVE.

547. WHEN the verb is in the infinitive mood, the nega tive 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 only seems to precede the verb in such expressions as I do not advance, I cannot advance, I have not advanced, &c. However, the words do, can, and have, are no infinitives; and it consequently follows them. The word advance is an infinitive, and it consequently precedes it. Wallis's rule makes an equivalent statement, although differently. "Adverbium negandi not (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 like it burneth not into the circumlocution it does not burn -is a fact in the practice of the English language. The syntax is the same in either expression.

§ 548. What may be called the distribution of the negative is pretty regular in English. Thus, when the word not comes between an indicative, imperative, or subjunctive mood and an infinitive verb, it almost always is taken with the word which it follows-I can not eat may mean either I cannot eat (i. e. I can abstain), or I can not—eat (i. e. I am unable to eat); but, as stated above, it almost always has the latter signification.

But not always. In Byron's "Deformed Transformed" we find the following lines:

VOL. II.

F F