a comparatively small number of prepositions, and this without any confusion or danger of mistake. We are guided in the meaning by the nature of the ideas between which the relation exists; but if one local relation were used for another, confusion would immediately arise.

10. As the object of prepositions is the same with that of cases in nouns, hence, in those languages where there are no cases, there must be more prepositions; and vice versa, in those languages which have numerous cases, fewer prepositions are necessary.

11. Whether the expression of relations by cases or by prepositions in the Indo-European languages is the more ancient, it is difficult to decide. With respect to the external and lower relations, it is natural to believe that prepositions were used from the first for their expression; but with respect to the internal spiritual relations the matter is not so clear. It would seem as if the language-makers had begun by expressing the internal relations by inflection, and the external by prepositions, and that the contest between these two principles has been the occasion of the endless variety of existing languages.

QUESTIONS UNDER CHAPTER VIII.

1. Give the two definitions of the preposition, with examples.

2. What is the derivation of the term, and does the name describe the nature and office of the preposition?

3. With what part of speech did some of the Greek grammarians class it? 4. What office do prepositions perform in modern languages as compared with ancient languages?

5. What are some of the relations which prepositions express? and what was the original relation which they expressed?

6. Mention some of the simple prepositions, and some of the compound of the several classes.

7. Mention some of the prepositions which were originally participles; and some that were verbs in the imperative mode; and some that were adjectives; 2nd some of the prepositional phrases.

8. Describe the nature and office of prepositions.

9. In expressing relations, which were prior, case-endings or prepositions?

CHAPTER IX.

CONJUNCTIONS.

§ 375. A CONJUNCTION is a word which can connect two propositions without making a part of either; as, "The sun shines and the sky is clear;" "You admire him because he is brave." See § 240.

Or, a Conjunction is a word which connects two sentences or parts of sentences; as, "John writes and Thomas reads;" "I will visit him if he desires it."

The word conjunction is derived from the Latin con, with, and junctus, joined joined together. The distinguishing characteristic of the conjunction is, that it shows the relation of sentences or propositions; thus, "He sang and danced"" He sang and he danced.” In each side of this equation there are really two propositions; the only difference between them is, that in one of them there is an ellipsis of the word he. A preposition connects words; a conjunction connects propositions. The same word is sometimes a conjunction, and at other times a preposition or an adverb. See § 361. A preposition is a part of speech serving to show the particular mode in which one sentence is connected with another sentence. Conjunctions are relational words or form-words.

§ 376. HARRIS'S CLASSIFICATION OF CONJUNCTION S. 1. Copulative,

1. Connective,

2. Disjunctive,

S1. Suppositive,

Causal.

2. Continuative, 2. Positive, {Collective.

(1. Simple,

2. Adversative, {2. Adequate or Inadequate. 1. Absolute or Comparative.

1. According to the above scheme, conjunctions are divided into classes, according as they connect the meanings of sentences or not, as well as the sentences themselves. The first are called CONNECTIVES, because they connect the meanings of sentences. The sec

ond class are called DISJUNCTIVES, because they do not connect the

meanings of sentences: "Casar was ambitious, AND Rome was enslaved," "Cæsar was ambitious, OR Rome was enslaved." It is evident that the words and and or alike join the two sentences, but it is equally evident that they join them very differently. In the one case it is signified by the conjunction and that the propositions stand on the same basis, and are both meant to be asserted with the same degree of confidence; in the other, it is signified by the conjunction or that the ground on which the one assertion is made excludes the other. Both and and or are conjunctions-both mark that a relation exists between the two sentences-but the particular relations which they mark are different. In the one case there is accumulation; in

the other, separation.

2. The CONNECTIVES are subdivided into Copulatives and Continuatives. Copulatives only couple sentences. Continuatives, on the other hand, consolidate sentences into one continuous whole. Thus we might say with propriety, "Franklin was a philosopher AND Henry was an orator." But it would be absurd to say, "Franklin was a philosopher BECAUSE Henry was an orator." And is a copulative; because, a continuative.

3. The CONTINUATIVES are subdivided into Suppositive and Positive. The suppositives are such as if; the positives such as because. The former imply necessary connection, but do not assert existence; the latter imply both the one and the other: "If we wish others to be good, we should set them an example by doing well ourselves;" "] shall not walk out BECAUSE it rains."

4. The POSITIVES are either Causal or Collective. The causals are such as because, &c., which subjoin causes to effects; as, The sun is in eclipse BECAUSE the moon intervenes. The collectives are such as subjoin effects to causes; as, The moon intervenes, THEREFORE the sun is in eclipse.

5. In like manner, the DISJUNCTIVES are divided into two classes, the Simple and Adversative. A simple disjunctive conjunction disjoins and opposes indefinitely; as, Either it is day on it is night. An adversative disjoins with a positive and definite opposition, asserting the one alternative and denying the other; as, It is not day BUT it is night.

6. The ADVERSATIVES admit of two distinctions: first, as they are either Absolute or Comparative; and, secondly, as they are either Adequate or Inadequate. The absolute adversative is where there is a simple opposition of the same attribute to different subjects, or of different attributes in the same subjects, or of different attributes in different subjects; as, 1. Achilles was brave, BUT Thersites was not;

2. Gorgias was a sophist, BUT not a philosopher; 3. Plato was a philoso pher, BUT Hippias was a sophist.

The comparative adversative marks the equality or excess of the same attribute in different subjects; as, Burke was more studious THAN Sheridan; Byron was as great a poet as Canning was an orator. These relate to substances and their qualities.

The other sort of adversatives relate to events, and their causes or consequences. HARRIS applies to these latter the terms Adequate and Inadequate. Thus, Troy will be taken UNLESS the Palladium be preserved. Here the word unless implies that the preservation of the Palladium will be an adequate preventive of the capture of Troy. On the other hand, when we say, Troy will be taken ALTHOUGH Hector defend it, we intimate that Hector's defending it, though employed to prevent the capture, will be an inadequate preventive.

The above classification has been brought forward, not so much for the purpose of commending its accuracy as for exhibiting the fact that conjunctions show the different relations of sentences.

377. I. The COPULATIVE. And, as, both, because, even, for, if, that, then, since, seeing, so, but.

II. The DISJUNCTIVE. Although, but, either, neither, except, lest, or, nor, notwithstanding, provided, than, though, whereas, whether.

This classification, though it has no great logical accuracy to recommend it, is convenient, especially for young pupils. Some of these conjunctions can be arranged in pairs which are Correlative; as, As—as; as—so; if—then; either—or; neither—nor; whether— or; although or though—yet. The one conjunction in each couplet is correlative to the other.

THE OFFICE OF CONJUNCTION S.

§ 378. It is a question among grammarians whether conjunctions connect words as well as sentences. HORNE TOOKE objected that there are cases in which the words commonly called conjunctions do not connect sentences, or show any relation between them. "You AND I AND Peter rode to London, is one sentence made up of three. Well! so far matters seem to go on very smoothly. It is, You rode, I rode, Peter rode. But now let us change the instance, and try some others, which are full as common. Two AND two make four; AB AND BC AND CA form a triangle; John AND Jane are a handsome couple. Are two four? Does AB form a triangle, BC form a triangle, CA form a triangle? Is John a couple? Is Jane a couple ?"

This objection of Mr. TOOKE's seems to have induced LINDLEY MURRAY, after defining a conjunction as "a part of speech chiefly used to connect sentences," to add, "it sometimes connects only words."

66

Now, even if it could be shown that the word and, generally used as a conjunction, was occasionally used with a different force and effect, that circumstance would not make it less a conjunction when used conjunctionally. In the instances cited, however, by TooKE, the word and serves merely to distribute the whole into its parts, all which bear relation to the verb; and it is observable that, though the verb be not twice expressed, yet it is expressed differently from what it would have been had there been only a single nominative. We say "John is handsome," "Jane is handsome;" but we say John and Jane are a handsome couple." In this particular the use of the conjunction varies the assertion, and thus does, in effect, combine different sentences; for though AB does not form a triangle, yet AB forms one part of a triangle, and BC forms another part, and CA the remaining part, and these parts are the whole. Since the first publication of this passage, I have been glad to see the view here taken confirmed by the authority of Dr. LATHAM. He says: "Although the statement that conjunctions connect, not words, but propositions, and that exclusively, is nearly coeval with grammar, it is not yet sufficiently believed or acted upon. What, I have frequently been asked, are we to do with such expressions as John and Thomas carry a sack to market;' 'three and three make six ?' Surely this does not mean that John carries one sack, and Thomas another; that one three makes one sum of six, and a second three makes another sum of six.

"The answer to this lies in making the proper limitation to the predicates. It is not true that John and Thomas each carry a sack; but it is true that they each carry. It is not true that each three makes six, but it is true that each three makes (i. e., contributes to the making). As far, then, as the essential parts of the predicate are concerned, there are two propositions; and it is upon the essential parts only that a grammarian rests his definition of a conjunction."-Sir JOHN STODDART's Philosophy of Language, p. 200.

ORIGIN OF CONJUNCTION S.

§ 379. Conjunctions are generally derived from some other part of speech; frequently from verbs in the imperative mode. HORNE TOOKE, indeed, asserts that they all are traceable to some other part of speech. He says, "There is not such a thing as a conjunction in