OBS. 11.—­Of the infinitive verb and its preposition to, some grammarians say, that they must never be separated by an adverb.  It is true, that the adverb is, in general, more elegantly placed before the preposition than after it; but, possibly, the latter position of it may sometimes contribute to perspicuity, which is more essential than elegance:  as, “If any man refuse so to implore, and to so receive pardon, let him die the death.”—­Fuller, on the Gospel, p. 209.  The latter word so, if placed like the former, might possibly be understood in a different sense from what it now bears.  But perhaps it would be better to say.  “If any man refuse so to implore, and on such terms to receive pardon, let him die the death.”  “Honour teaches us properly to respect ourselves.”—­Murray’s Key, ii, 252.  Here it is not quite clear, to which verb the adverb “properly” relates.  Some change of the expression is therefore needful.  The right to place an adverb sometimes between to and its verb, should, I think, be conceded to the poets:  as,

   “Who dared to nobly stem tyrannic pride.”—­BURNS:  C.  Sat.  N.

OBS. 12.—­The adverb no is used independently, only when it is equivalent to a whole sentence.  This word is sometimes an adverb of degree; and as such it has this peculiarity, that it can relate only to comparatives:  as, “No more,”—­“No better,”—­“No greater,”—­“No sooner.”  When no is set before a noun, it is clearly an adjective, corresponding to the Latin nullus; as, “No clouds, no vapours intervene.”—­Dyer.  Dr. Johnson, with no great accuracy, remarks, “It seems an adjective in these phrases, no longer, no more, no where; though sometimes it may be so commodiously changed to not, that it seems an adverb; as, ’The days are yet no shorter.’”—­Quarto Dict. And his first example of what he calls the “adverb NO” is this:  “’Our courteous Antony, Whom ne’er the word of no woman heard speak.’  SHAKSPEARE.”—­Ibid. Dr. Webster says, “When it precedes where, as in no where, it may be considered as adverbial, though originally an adjective.”—­Octavo Dict. The truth is, that no is an adverb, whenever it relates to an adjective; an adjective, whenever it relates to a noun; and a noun, whenever it takes the relation of a case.  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.