ion: as, "Do I say these things as a man?"--"Do you think that we excuse ourselves?"--"Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?"--"Dost thou revile?" &c. But in the solemn or the poetic style, though either may be used, the simple form is more dignified, and perhaps more graceful: as, "Say I these things as a man?"--1 Cor., ix, 8. "Think ye that we excuse ourselves?"--2 Cor., xii, 19. "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?"--1 Cor., v, 6. "Revilest thou God's high priest?"--Acts. "King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets?"--Ib. "Understandest thou what thou readest?"--Ib. "Of whom speaketh the prophet this?"--Id. "And the man of God said, Where fell it?"--2 Kings, vi, 6.
"What! heard ye not of lowland war?"--Sir W. Scott, L. L.
"Seems he not, Malise, like a ghost?"--Id., L. of Lake.
"Where thinkst thou he is now? Stands he, or sits he? Or does he walk? or is he on his horse?"--Shak., Ant. and Cleop.
OBS. 2.--In interrogative sentences, the auxiliaries shall and will are not always capable of being applied to the different persons agreeably to their use in simple declarations: thus, "Will I go?" is a question which there never can be any occasion to ask in its literal sense; because none knows better than I, what my will or wish is. But "Shall I go?" may properly be asked; because shall here refers to duty, and asks to know what is agreeable to the will of an other. In questions, the first person generally requires shall; the second, will; the third admits of both: but, in the second-future, the third, used interrogatively, seems to require will only. Yet, in that figurative kind of interrogation which is sometimes used to declare a negative, there may be occasional exceptions to these principles; as, "Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?"--Psalms, 1, 13. That is, I will not eat, &c.
OBS. 3.--Cannot is not properly one word, but two: in parsing, the adverb must be taken separately, and the auxiliary be explained with its principal. When power is denied, can and not are now generally united--perhaps in order to prevent ambiguity; as, "I cannot go." But when the power is affirmed, and something else is denied, the words are written separately; as, "The Christian apologist can not merely expose the utter baseness of the infidel assertion, but he has positive ground for erecting an opposite and confronting assertion in its place."--Dr. Chalmers. The junction of these terms, however, is not of much importance to the sense; and, as it is plainly contrary to analogy, some writers,--(as Dr. Webster, in his late or "improved" works; Dr. Bullions, in his; Prof. W. C. Fowler, in his new "English Grammar," 8vo; R. C. Trench, in his "Study of Words;" T. S. Pinneo, in his "revised" grammars; J. R. Chandler, W. S. Cardell, O. B. Peirce,--) always separate them. And, indeed, why should we write, "I cannot go, Thou canst not go, He cannot go?" Apart from the custom, we have just as good reason to join not to canst as to can; and sometimes its union with the latter is a gross error: as, "He cannot only make a way to escape, but with the injunction to duty can infuse the power to perform."--Maturin's Sermons, p. 287. The fear of ambiguity never prevents us from disjoining can and not whenever we wish to put a word between them: as, "Though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it."--Jeremiah, v, 22. "Which then I can resist not."--Byron's Manfred, p. 1.
"Can I not mountain maiden spy, But she must bear the Douglas eye?"--Scott.
OBS. 4.--In negative questions, the adverb not is sometimes placed before the nominative, and sometimes after it: as, "Told not I thee?"--Numb., xxiii, 26. "Spake I not also to thy messengers?"--Ib., xxiv, 12. "Cannot I do with you as this potter?"--Jer., xviii, 6. "Art not thou a seer?"--2 Sam., xv, 27. "Did not Israel know?"--Rom., x, 19. "Have they not heard?"--Ib., 18. "Do not they blaspheme that worthy name?"--James, ii, 7. This adverb, like every other, should be placed where it will sound most agreeably, and best suit the sense. Dr. Priestley imagined that it could not properly come before the nominative. He says, "When the nominative case is put after the verb, on account of an interrogation, no other word should be interposed between them. [EXAMPLES:] 'May not we here say with Lucretius?'--Addison on Medals, p. 29. May we not say? 'Is not it he.' [?] Smollett's Voltaire, Vol 18, p. 152. Is it not he. [?]"--Priestley's Gram., p. 177.
OBS. 5.--In grave discourse, or in oratory, the adverb not is spoken as distinctly as other words; but, ordinarily, when placed before the nominative, it is rapidly slurred over in utterance and the o is not heard. In fact, it is generally (though inelegantly) contracted in familiar conversation, and joined to the auxiliary: as, IND. Don't they do it? Didn't they do it? Haven't they done it? Hadn't they done it? Shan't, or won't they do it? Won't they have done it? POT. Mayn't, can't, or mustn't they do it? Mightn't, couldn't, wouldn't, or shouldn't they do it? Mayn't, can't, or mustn't they have done it? Mightn't, couldn't, wouldn't, or shouldn't they have done it?
OBS. 6.--Well-educated people commonly utter their words with more distinctness and fullness than the vulgar, yet without adopting ordinarily the long-drawn syllables of poets and orators, or the solemn phraseology of preachers and prophets. Whatever may be thought of the grammatical propriety of such contractions as the foregoing, no one who has ever observed how the English language is usually spoken, will doubt their commonness, or their antiquity. And it may be observed, that, in the use of these forms, the distinction of persons and numbers in the verb, is almost, if not entirely, dropped. Thus don't is used for dost not or does not, as properly as for do not; and, "Thou can't do it, or shan't do it," is as good English as, "He can't do it, or shan't do
