Indeed, the relation of the parts of speech to the whole is altogether unaffected by the question whether language is of spontaneous growth or the invention of design. Thought and speech have grown together under common laws, whether consciously or unconsciously obeyed. When the architect distinguishes the several parts of a building, pointing out what is necessary for stability, what for comfort, and what is merely ornamental, it is no refutation to tell him that his columns were once unhewn rock, that his beams have passed through the several stages of seed and sapling and tree and timber. Here the combination is designed. But we may also describe the several offices of the eye, the foot, or the hand, though fully aware that there was a time in every man's life when he could not judge of distance by the eye, when he could not stand upright on his feet, and when he employed his hand for the sole purpose of sucking its extremities.

We must now turn to the subordinate parts of speech, distinguished by Harris as connectives. These differ from those above noticed in one important respect. Their functions may always be discharged, awkwardly indeed, but sufficiently, by the primary parts of the proposition. And there can be no question that the clumsy and unnatural appearance of the paraphrase is principally the result of habit, the feeling of deficiency which arises from renouncing a luxury to which we have all our lives been accustomed. Hence there is much truth in Tooke's ingenious simile: "I imagine that it is in some measure with the vehicle of our thoughts as with the vehicles for our bodies. The first carriage for men was no doubt invented to transport the bodies of those who, from infirmity or otherwise, could not move themselves. But should any one, desirous of understanding the purpose and meaning of all the parts of our modern elegant carriages, attempt to explain them upon this one principle alone, viz., that they were necessary for conveyance, he would find himself wofully puzzled to account for the wheels, the seats, the springs, the glasses, the lining, &c., not to mention the mere ornamental parts of gilding, varnish, &c."

His premises, however, do not warrant his conclusion. He is right in saying that the duties of the connectives may be adequately discharged by other means; he is wrong in logically identifying the connective with the word from which etymologically it is derived, instead of with the whole sentence to which that word is subordinate. The conjunction and preposition he reduces, sometimes to the noun, sometimes to the verb. But the noun and the verb themselves are fully significant only as the subject and predicate of a proposition; the introduction of a new noun or verb implies that of a new assertion. To take one

Subordinate Parts of Speech-Conjunction.

61

of Tooke's own instances. He tells us that from means beginning, and that the sentence, "the lamp hangs from the ceiling," is equivalent to "the lamp hangs, beginning the ceiling." But here there is an ellipsis of an assertion, "the ceiling is the beginning." We grant that the functions of the connectives may be discharged by nouns and verbs; not however by either separately, but by the two in combination. Every noun is virtually the subject, every verb virtually the predicate of an assertion; and in every sentence wherein more than one noun or verb occurs, whether in full or abbreviated form, there will be an ellipsis of so many distinct propositions.

6 two

There has been some dispute among grammarians as to the distinction of the two connectives from each other. The preposition is commonly said to connect words, the conjunction, sentences. Against this Tooke adduces such expressions as and two make four," "A B and B C and C A make a triangle." Here the conjunction, he says, does not unite sentences; we "two is four," or "A B makes a triangle."

cannot say

Sir John Stoddart adopts the old distinction, with an ingenious defence against the objector.

"In the instances cited 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 differs from that of the preposition it varies the assertion, and thus does in effect combine different sentences; for though A B does not form a triangle, yet A B forms one part of a triangle, and B C forms another part, and C A the remaining part; and these three parts are the whole Since the first publication of the passages immediately preceding, I have been glad to see the view here taken confirmed by the authority of Dr. Latham, in one of his valuable grammatical works."-P. 200.

We have a high respect for the authority of Sir John Stoddart, as well as for that of Dr. Latham, but we cannot help thinking that there is a little special pleading in this defence. And even granting its validity in the instances above given, it does not apply to cases where the conjunction unites portions of the predicate instead of the subject of a proposition. If I assert that a gentleman of my acquaintance drinks brandy and water, he might not relish the imputation of imbibing separate potations of the neat spirit and the pure element. Stradling versus Stiles is a case in point. "Out of the kind love and respect that I bear unto my much honoured and good friend Mr. Matthew Stradling, gent., I do bequeath unto the said Matthew Stradling,

ch

eech; thus.n pars oratu's n in his yo

rise out of e
shown that an
speech; that t
sion or mind i
utive-that

atter term in ta
ive endeavour-t
a classes, (a ax
ications of vers
tive and relative
gumentative; he
ar or doubtful.
the connection i
conclusion.

as affecting eith-
atity is either
sion or penisica
five, and the latter
dary modification
rse of the primary
which, as effecting no
mproperly admit
red the methor

Ler

nd word, orange

SO

ins,

Dosi

rable

small

sophy

onour

1 most

nominalaboured e with the

the age, "la ie, mais elle

De Biran's opinions. to readers in general, "Nouvelles considéra

gent. all my black and white horses. The testator had six black horses, six white horses, and six pied horses."

Horne Tooke, in allusion to his own trial, complained of having been made the miserable victim of two prepositions and a conjunction. In the present case, the whole point at issue turns upon the question whether the copulative and joins sentences or words. If the former, the plaintiff is entitled to the black horses, and also to the white, but not to the pied. If the latter, he has a right to the pied horses, but must forego his claim to the rest. And if the latter interpretation be adopted, must we say that and is a preposition and not a conjunction, or must we modify the definitions of these two parts of speech? To solve this dilemma, we transcribe Sir John Stoddart's definition of the preposition, with his comment :—

"A preposition is a part of speech employed in a complex sentence, and serving to express the relation in which the conception named by a noun substantive stands to that named by another noun substantive, or asserted by a verb.

"In developing the above definition, I first observe that the sentence in which the preposition is employed must be a complex one. And this is evident; for, in addition to the assertion of a connection between a subject and its attribute, (which together forms a simple sentence, as John walks,' or 'John is walking,') the preposition expresses a conception of relation, which conception, if added to the attribute and assertion in the verb, forms another simple sentence. If I say 'John walks before Peter,' I, in effect, make two assertions, first, that John is walking, and, secondly, that the walking is before Peter. In the language of lawyers, I present two issues; for it may be admitted that John walks, and denied that the walking is before Peter. In like manner, if the conception of relation be added to one of two connected substantives, as 'Solomon was the son of David,' the sentence involves two assertions, viz., that Solomon stood in the relation of a son, and that that relation connected him with David; and the word expressing the connection is the preposition 'of."-P. 170.

These remarks are strictly applicable only when the preposition belongs to the predicate of an affirmative proposition; but not when it is in the predicate of a negative, or in the subject of either. Change the above assertion to "Rehoboam was not the son of David;" assuredly I have no intention of maintaining that he was not a son. Or if I say "a man of virtue is worthy of esteem," I assert nothing either of men in general or of any individual man, except on the hypothesis of his being virtuous.

In fact, the complex sentence is purely accidental. It is never asserted by the speaker, but in some cases may be inferred. Every logician knows that where we can affirm a species, we