Against this view there are two reasons:
1. The double forms [Greek: tupsaimi] and [Greek: tupsoimi], one of which would remain unplaced.
2. The use of the optative and conjunctive in simple propositions, as--
[Greek: o pai, genoio patros eutuchesteros.]
The first reason I am not prepared to impugn. _Valeat quantum_, &c. The second indicates a cla.s.s of expressions which tense will _not_ explain, and which mood _will_. Yet this is not conclusive. _Would that thou wert_ is thoroughly optative: yet it is expressed by a tense.
The _form_ of the so-called optatives proves nothing. Neither the subjunctive nor the optative has any signs of _mood_ at all, except the negative one of the absence of the augment. Their signs are the signs of _tense_.
In favour of the view are the following reasons:--
1. The a.n.a.logy of other languages. The imperfect has a subjunctive in Latin. So has the future.
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 [Greek: blepson] _must_ be future. Though [Greek: thes] and [Greek: t.i.thei] differ in power, they both mean an {491} action subsequent to, or, at any rate, simultaneous with the order given; certainly not one anterior to it.
-- 618. _Be_ may stand for _may be_. In this case the preterite 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_?[65]
-- 619. _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 cla.s.ses) 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, _sub_disjunctives.
In the English language there is no separate word to distinguish the nominal from the real disjunctive. In Latin, {492} _vel_ is considered by Harris to be disjunctive, _sive_ subdisjunctive. As a periphrasis the combination _in other words_ is 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 _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.
-- 620. _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 p.r.o.noun,--_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.
-- 621. From the p.r.o.nominal 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 a.s.sumption 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 {493} consider _either_ not only as _a_ p.r.o.noun, but as _the leading_ p.r.o.noun of the proposition; a p.r.o.noun of which _or I_ is an explanation; and, finally, as the p.r.o.noun 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 p.r.o.noun, which determines the person of the verbs; the words, _or you_, being parenthetic, and subordinate. These statements bear upon the rules of p. 457.
-- 622. 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 p.r.o.noun is plural.
Perhaps not. The a.s.sumption 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[66] essentially singular in number.
{494}
2. That it is, like any common noun, of the third person.
3. That it is p.r.o.nominal 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 p.r.o.noun 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.
-- 623. 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_.
{495}
CHAPTER XXVII.
THE SYNTAX OF THE NEGATIVE.
-- 624. 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 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 princ.i.p.ali): aliis tamen orationis partibus praefigi 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 circ.u.mlocution it _does not burn_, is a fact in the practice of the English language. The syntax is the same in either expression.
-- 625. 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 can--not 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.