Thus, in what Johnson cites from Shakspeare, it is a noun, and not an adverb; for the meaning is, that a woman never heard Antony speak the word of no--that is, of negation. And there ought to be a comma after this word, to make the text intelligible. To read it thus: "the word of no woman," makes no an adjective. So, to say, "There are no abler critics than these," is a very different thing from saying, "There are critics no abler than these;" because no is an adjective in the former sentence, and an adverb in the latter. Somewhere, nowhere, anywhere, else-where, and everywhere, are adverbs of place, each of which is composed of the noun where and an adjective; and it is absurd to write a part of them as compound words, and the rest as phrases, as many authors do.
OBS. 13.--In some languages, the more negatives one crowds into a sentence, the stronger is the negation; and this appears to have been formerly the case in English, or in what was anciently the language of Britain: as, "He never yet no vilanie ne sayde in alle his lif unto no manere wight."--Chaucer. "Ne I ne wol non reherce, yef that I may."--Id. "Give not me counsel; nor let no comforter delight mine ear."--Shakspeare. "She cannot love, nor take no shape nor project of affection."--Id. Among people of education, this manner of expression has now become wholly obsolete; though it still prevails, to some extent, in the conversation of the vulgar. It is to be observed, however, that the repetition of an independent negative word or clause yet strengthens the negation; as, "No, no, no."--"No, never."--"No, not for an hour."--Gal., ii, 5. "There is none righteous, no, not one."--Rom., iii, 10. But two negatives in the same clause, if they have any bearing on each other, destroy the negation, and render the meaning weakly affirmative; as, "Nor did they not perceive their evil plight."--Milton. That is, they did perceive it. "'His language, though inelegant, is not ungrammatical;' that is, it is grammatical."-- Murray's Gram., p. 198. The term not only, or not merely, being a correspondent to but or but also, may be followed by an other negative without this effect, because the two negative words have no immediate bearing on each other; as, "Your brother is not only not present, and not assisting in prosecuting your injuries, but is now actually with Verres."--Duncan's Cicero, p, 19. "In the latter we have not merely nothing, to denote what the point should be; but no indication, that any point at all is wanting."--Churchill's Gram., p. 373. So the word nothing, when taken positively for nonentity, or that which does not exist, may be followed by an other negative; as,
"First, seat him somewhere, and derive his race, Or else conclude that nothing has no place."--Dryden, p. 95.
OBS. 14.--The common rule of our grammars, "Two negatives, in English, destroy each other, or are equivalent to an affirmative," is far from being true of all possible examples. A sort of informal exception to it, (which is mostly confined to conversation,) is made by a familiar transfer of the word neither from the beginning of the clause to the end of it; as, "But here is no notice taken of that neither"--Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 336. That is, "But neither is any notice here taken of that." Indeed a negation may be repeated, by the same word or others, as often as we please, if no two of the terms in particular contradict each other; as, "He will never consent, not he, no, never, nor I neither." "He will not have time, no, nor capacity neither."--Bolingbroke, on Hist., p. 103. "Many terms and idioms may be common, which, nevertheless, have not the general sanction, no, nor even the sanction of those that use them."--Campbell's Rhet., p. 160; Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 358. And as to the equivalence spoken of in the same rule, such an expression as, "He did not say nothing," is in fact only a vulgar solecism, take it as you will; whether for, "He did not say anything," or for, "He did say something." The latter indeed is what the contradiction amounts to; but double negatives must be shunned, whenever they seem like blunders. The following examples have, for this reason, been thought objectionable; though Allen says, "Two negatives destroy each other, or elegantly form an affirmation."--Gram., p. 174.
------------"Nor knew I not
To be both will and deed created free."
--Milton, P. L., B. v., l. 548.
"Nor doth the moon no nourishment exhale
From her moist continent to higher orbs."
--Ib., B. v, l. 421.
OBS. 15.--Under the head of double negatives, there appears in our grammars a dispute of some importance, concerning the adoption of or or nor, when any other negative than neither or nor occurs in the preceding clause or phrase: as, "We will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image."--Dan., iii., 18. "Ye have no portion, nor right, nor memorial in Jerusalem."--Neh., ii, 20. "There is no painsworthy difficulty nor dispute about them."--Horne Tooke, Div., Vol. i, p. 43. "So as not to cloud that principal object, nor to bury it."--Blair's Rhet., p. 115; Murray's Gram., p. 322. "He did not mention Leonora, nor her father's death."--Murray's Key, p. 264. "Thou canst not tell whence it cometh, nor whither it goeth."--Ib., p. 215. The form of this text, in John iii, 8th. is--"But canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth;" which Murray inserted in his exercises as bad English. I do not see that the copulative and is here ungrammatical; but if we prefer a disjunctive, ought it not to be or rather than nor? It appears to be the opinion of some, that in ail these examples, and in similar instances innumerable, nor only is proper. Others suppose, that or only is justifiable; and others again, that either or or nor is perfectly correct. Thus grammar, or what should be grammar, differs in the hands of different men! The principle to be settled here, must determine the correctness or incorrectness of a vast number of very common expressions. I imagine that none of these opinions is warrantable, if taken in all that extent to which each of them has been, or may be, carried.
