Of the connectives employed in combining the parts of a sentence.

the sentence, which they help in a bungling manner to hobble forwards.

I PROCEED to exemplify further, in our own language, the general observation made above, that an improvement of taste leads men insensibly to abbreviate those weaker parts of speech, the connexive particles. I have remarked already the total suppression of the conjunction that after because, before, although, and many others of the same stamp, with which it was wont to be inseparably combined. But we have not stopt here. This particle is frequently omitted, when there is no other conjunction to connect the clauses, as in this example, "Did I not tell you positively, I "would go myself?" In order to construe the sentence, we must supply the word that after positively. Concerning this omission I shall just observe, what I would be understood in like manner to observe concerning the omission of the relatives to be mentioned afterwards, that though, in conversation, comedy, and dialogue, such an ellipsis is graceful when, without hurting perspicuity, it contributes to vivacity; yet, wherever the nature of the composition requires dignity and precision in the style, this freedom is hardly

to be risked.

ANOTHER remarkable instance of our dislike to conjunctions, is a method, for aught I know, peculiar to us; by which the particles tho' and if, when in construction with any of the tenses, compounded with had,

Sect. II.

66

Of other connectives.

could, would, or should, are happily enough set aside as unnecessary. This is effected by a small alteration in the arrangement. The nominative is shifted from its ordinary station before the auxiliary, and is placed immediately after it, as in these words, " Had I known "the danger, I would not have engaged in the busi"ness;" that is, "If I had known the danger," "Should you remonstrate ever so loudly, I would not alter my resolution;" that is, "Tho' you should re"monstrate"- The reason that this transposition cannot be admitted in the other tenses, is, that in them it would occasion an ambiguity, and give the sentence the appearance of an interrogation, which it scarcely ever hath in the tenses above mentioned. Sometimes, indeed, the preterimperfect admits this idiom, without rendering the expression ambiguous; as in these words, "Did I but know his intention," for " If I did but "know his intention "Were I present,"--for If I were present." The tense, however, in such instances, may more properly be termed an aorist, than a preterit of any kind; and the mood is subjunctive.

66

SECT. II....Of other Connectives.

Now, that I am speaking of the auxiliaries, it may not be amiss to remark, that they too, like the conjunctions, the relatives, and the prepositions, are but words of a secondary order. The signification of the VOL. II.

Y

Of the connectives employed in combining the parts of a sentence.

verb is ascertained by the infinitive or the participle which follows the auxiliar in the compound tenses of the active voice, and always by the participle in the passive. The auxiliaries themselves serve only to modify the verb, by adding the circumstances of time, affirmation, supposition, interrogation, and some others. An abridgment in these, therefore, which are but weak, though not the weakest parts of discourse, conduceth to strengthen the expression. But there are not many cases wherein this is practicable. Sometimes had supplies emphatically the place of would have, and were of would be. An instance of the first we have in the words of Martha to our Saviour.

Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not "died." The last clause would have been feebler, had it been," my brother would not have died." An example of the second is the words of the Israelites on hearing the report of the spies. "Were it not better "for us to return into Egypt †?" for "Would it not "be better?"

BUT, to come to the consideration of the relatives; the first real improvement which taste hath produced here, is the dismission of the article from its wonted attendance on the pronoun which. The definite article could nowhere be less necessary, as the antecedent always defines the meaning. Another effect of the same cause is the introduction of what instead of

that which, as, "I remember what you told me;" otherwise,“ that which you told me." Another is the extending of the use of the word whose, by making it serve as the possessive of the pronoun which.

THE distinction between who and which is now perfectly established in the language. The former relates only to persons, the latter to things. But this distinction, though a real advantage in point of perspicuity and precision, affects not much the vivacity of the style. The possessive of who is properly whose, the pronoun which, originally indeclinable, had no possessive. This want was supplied in the common periphrastic manner, by the help of the preposition and the article. But, as this could not fail to enfeeble the expression, when so much time was given to mere conjunctives, all our best authors, both in prose and in verse, have come now regularly to adopt in such cases the possessive of who; and thus have substituted one syllable in the room of three, as in the example following: "Philosophy, whose end is to instruct us in the knowledge of Nature,"—for " Philosophy, the end of which is to instruct us."-Some grammarians remonstrate. But it ought to be remembered, that use well established must give law to grammar, and not grammar to use. Nor is this acceptation of the word whose of recent introduction into the language. It occurs even in Shakespeare, and almost uniformly in authors of any character since his time. Neither does there appear to be any inconvenience arising from this

66

66

Of the connectives employed in combining the parts of a sentence.

usage. The connection with the antecedent is commonly so close, as to remove all possible ambiguity. If, however, in any instance, the application should appear ambiguous, in that instance, without question, the periphrasis ought to be preferred. But the term thus applied to things could not be considered as improper, any longer than it was by general use peculiarly appropriated to persons, and therefore considered merely as an inflection of the pronoun who. Now, that cannot be affirmed to be the case at present.

66

THOUGH to limit the signification of the pronouns would at first seem conducive to precision, it may sometimes be followed with inconveniencies which would more than counterbalance the advantage.— That," says Dr Lowth," is used indifferently both "of persons and things, but perhaps would be more properly confined to the latter *."- Yet there are cases wherein we cannot conveniently dispense with this relative as applied to persons; as first, after who the interrogative, "Who that has any sense of reli

66

66

gion would have argued thus?" Secondly, when persons make but a part of the antecedent: "The "men and things that he hath studied, have not con"tributed to the improvement of his morals." In neither of these examples could any other relative be used. In the instances specified by Dr Priestley †, the that, if not necessary, is at least more elegant than

+ Grammar....Pronouns.

* Introduction....Sentences.