OBS. 16.--It was observed by Priestley, and after him by Lindley Murray, from whom others again have copied the remark: "Sometimes the particles or and nor, may, either of them, be used with nearly equal propriety; [as,] 'The king, whose character was not sufficiently vigorous, nor decisive, assented to the measure.'--Hume. Or would perhaps have been better, but nor seems to repeat the negation in the former part of the sentence, and therefore gives more emphasis to the expression."-- Priestley's Gram., p. 138; Murray's, i, 212; Ingersoll's, 268; R. C. Smith's, 177. The conjunction or might doubtless have been used in this sentence, but not with the same meaning that is now conveyed; for, if that connective had been employed, the adjective decisive would have been qualified by the adverb sufficiently, and would have seemed only an alternative for the former epithet, vigorous. As the text now stands, it not only implies a distinction between vigour of character and decision of character, but denies the latter to the king absolutely, the former, with qualification. If the author had meant to suggest such a distinction, and also to qualify his denial of both, he ought to have said--"not sufficiently vigorous, nor sufficiently decisive." With this meaning, however, he might have used neither for not; or with the former, he might have used or for nor, had he transposed the terms--"was not decisive, or sufficiently vigorous."
OBS. 17.--In the tenth edition of John Burn's Practical Grammar, published at Glasgow, in 1810, are the following suggestions: "It is not uncommon to find the conjunctions or and nor used indiscriminately; but if there be any real distinction in the proper application of them, it is to be wished that it were settled. It is attempted thus:--Let the conjunction or be used simply to connect the members of a sentence, or to mark distribution, opposition, or choice, without any preceding negative particle; and nor to mark the subsequent part of a negative sentence, with some negative particle in the preceding part of it. Examples of OR: 'Recreation of one kind or other is absolutely necessary to relieve the body or mind from too constant attention to labour or study.'--'After this life, succeeds a state of rewards or punishments.'--'Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love?' Examples of NOR: 'Let no man be too confident, nor too diffident of his own abilities.'--'Never calumniate any man, nor give the least encouragement to calumniators.'--'There is not a Christian duty to which providence has not annexed a blessing, nor any affliction for which a remedy is not provided.' If the above distinction be just, the following passage seems to be faulty:
'Seasons return, but not to me returns
Day, or the sweet approach of ev'n or morn,
Or sight of vernal bloom, or summer's rose,
Or flocks, or herds, or human face divine.'
Milton, P. L., B. iii, l. 40.--"Burn's Gr., p. 108.
OBS. 18.--T. O. Churchill, whose Grammar first appeared in London in 1823, treats this matter thus: "As or answers to either, nor, a compound of not or [ne or] by contraction, answers to neither, a similar compound of not either [ne either]. The latter however does not constitute that double use of the negative, in which one, agreeably to the principles of philosophical grammar, destroys the other; for a part of the first word, neither, cannot be understood before the second, nor: and for the same reason a part of it could not be understood before or, which is sometimes improperly used in the second clause; while the whole of it, neither, would be obviously improper before or. On the other hand, when not is used in the first clause, nor is improper in the second; since it would involve the impropriety of understanding not before a compound of not [or ne] with or. 'I shall not attempt to convince, nor to persuade you.--What will you not attempt?--To convince, nor to persuade you.' The impropriety of nor in this answer is clear: but the answer should certainly repeat the words not heard, or not understood."--Churchill's New Gram., p. 330.
OBS. 19.--"It is probable, that the use of nor after not has been introduced, in consequence of such improprieties as the following: 'The injustice of inflicting death for crimes, when not of the most heinous nature, or attended with extenuating circumstances.' Here it is obviously not the intention of the writer, to understand the negative in the last clause: and, if this were good English, it would be not merely allowable to employ nor after not, to show the subsequent clause to be negative as well as the preceding, but it would always be necessary. In fact, however, the sentence quoted is faulty, in not repeating the adverb when in the last clause; 'or when attended:' which would preclude the negative from being understood in it; for, if an adverb, conjunction, or auxiliary verb, preceding a negative, be understood in the succeeding clause, the negative is understood also; if it be repeated, the negative must be repeated likewise, or the clause becomes affirmative."--Ib., p. 330.
OBS. 20.--This author, proceeding with his remarks, suggests forms of correction for several other common modes of expression, which he conceives to be erroneous. For the information of the student, I shall briefly notice a little further the chief points of his criticism, though he teaches some principles which I have not thought it necessary always to observe in writing. "'And seemed not to understand ceremony, or to despise it.' Goldsmith. Here either ought to be inserted before not. 'It is not the business of virtue, to extirpate the affections of the mind, but to regulate them.' Addison. The sentence ought to have been: 'It is the business of virtue, not to extirpate the affections of the mind, but to regulate them.' 'I do not think, that he was averse to the office; nor do I believe, that it was unsuited to him.' How much better to say: 'I do not think, that he was averse to the office, or that it was unsuited to him!' For the same reason nor cannot follow never, the negative in the first clause affecting all the rest."--Ib. p. 332. "Nor is sometimes used improperly after no: [as,] 'I humbly however trust in God, that I
