OBS. 24.—Peirce's new theory of grammar rests mainly on the assumption, that no correct sentence ever is, or can be, in any wise, elliptical. This is one of the "Two GRAND PRINCIPLES" on which the author says his "work is based."—The Grammar, p. 10. The other is, that grammar cannot possibly be taught without a thorough reformation of its nomenclature, a reformation involving a change of most of the names and technical terms heretofore used for its elucidation. I do not give precisely his own words, for one half of this author's system is expressed in such language as needs to be translated into English in order to be generally understood; but this is precisely his meaning, and in words more intelligible. In what estimation he holds these two positions, may be judged from the following assertion: "Without these grand points, no work, whatever may be its pretensions, can be A GRAMMAR of the LANGUAGE."—Ib. It follows that no man who does not despise every other book that is called a grammar, can entertain any favourable opinion of Peirce's. The author however is tolerably consistent. He not only scorns to appeal, for the confirmation of his own assertions and rules, to the judgement or practice of any other writer, but counsels the learner to "spurn the idea of quoting, either as proof or for defence, the authority of any man." See p. 13. The notable results of these important premises are too numerous for detail even in this general pandect. But it is to be mentioned here, that, according to this theory, a nominative coming after than or as, is in general to be accounted a nominative absolute; that is, a nominative which is independent of any verb; or, (as the ingenious author himself expresses it,) "A word in the subjective case following another subjective, and immediately preceded by than, as, or not, may be used without an ASSERTER immediately depending on it for sense."—Peirce's Gram., p. 195. See also his "Grammatical Chart, Rule I, Part 2."
OBS. 25.—"Lowth, Priestley, Murray, and most grammarians say, that hypothetical, conditional, concessive, or exceptive conjunctions; as, if, lest, though, unless, except; require, or govern the subjunctive mood. But in this they are certainly wrong: for, as Dr. Crombie rightly observes, the verb is put in the subjunctive mood, because the mood expresses contingency, not because it follows the conjunction: for these writers themselves allow, that the same conjunctions are to be followed by the indicative mood, when the verb is not intended to express a contingency. In the following sentence: 'Though he be displeased at it, I will bolt my door; and let him break it open if he dare:' may we not as well affirm, that and governs the imperative mood, as that though and if govern the subjunctive?"—Churchill's Gram., p. 321.
OBS. 26.—In the list of correspondents contained in Note 7th below, there are some words which ought not to be called conjunctions, by the parser; for the relation of a word as the proper correspondent to an other word, does not necessarily determine its part of speech. Thus, such is to be parsed as an adjective; as, sometimes as a pronoun; so, as a conjunctive adverb. And only, merely, also, and even, are sometimes conjunctive adverbs; as, "Nor is this only a matter of convenience to the poet, it is also a source of gratification to the reader."— Campbell's Rhet., p. 166. Murray's, Gram., i, 362. Professor Bullions will have it, that these adverbs may relate to nouns—a doctrine which I disapprove. He says "Only, solely, chiefly, merely, too, also, and perhaps a few others, are sometimes joined to substantives; as, 'Not only the men, but the women also were present.'"—English Gram., p. 116. Only and also are here, I think, conjunctive adverbs; but it is not the office of adverbs to qualify nouns; and, that these words are adjuncts to the nouns men and women, rather than the verb were, which is once expressed and once understood, I see no sufficient reason to suppose. Some teachers imagine, that an adverb of this kind qualifies the whole clause in which it stands. But it would seem, that the relation of such words to verbs, participles, or adjectives, according to the common rule for adverbs, is in general sufficiently obvious: as, "The perfect tense not only refers to what is past, but also conveys an allusion to the present time."—Murray's Gram., p. 70. Is there any question about the true mode of parsing "only" and "also" here? and have they not in the other sentence, a relation similar to what is seen here?
NOTES TO RULE XXII.
NOTE I.—When two terms connected are each to be extended and completed in sense by a third, they must both be such as will make sense with it. Thus, in stead of saying, "He has made alterations and additions to the work," say, "He has made alterations in the work, and additions to it;" because the relation between alterations and work is not well expressed by to.
NOTE II.—In general, any two terms which we connect by a conjunction, should be the same in kind or quality, rather than different or heterogeneous. Example: "The assistance was welcome, and seasonably afforded."—Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 249. Better: "The assistance was welcome, and it was seasonably afforded." Or: "The assistance was both seasonable and welcome."
NOTE III.—The conjunctions, copulative or disjunctive, affirmative or negative, must be used with a due regard to their own import, and to the true idiom of the language. Thus, say, "The general bent or turn of the language is towards the other form;" and not, with Lowth and Churchill, "The general bent and turn of the language is towards the other form."—Short Introd., p. 60; New Gram., p. 113. So, say, "I cannot deny that there are perverse jades;" and not, with Addison, "I
