the who. The first is after a superlative, as " He was "the fittest person that could then be found;" the second is after the pronominal adjective the same; as, "He is the same man that you saw before." And it is even probable that these are not the only cases. THE possessive its of the neuter personal pronoun it, hath contributed in the same way, though not a relative, both to abbreviate and to invigorate the idiom of the present age. It is not above a century and a half since this possessive was first brought into use. Accordingly, you will not find it in all the vulgar translation of the Bible. Its place there is always supplied either by the article and the preposition, as in these words, "They are of those that rebel against "the light; they know not the ways thereof, nor "abide in the paths thereof," for "they know not "its ways, nor abide in its paths ;" or by the possessive of the masculine, as in this verse, "The altar of burnt-offerings with all his furniture, and the laver "and his foot t." The first method is formal and languid; the second must appear awkward to English ears, because very unsuitable to the genius of the language, which never, unless in the figurative style, as is well observed by Mr Harris ‡, ascribes gender to such things as are neither reasonable beings, nor susceptible of sex. 66 * Job xxiv. 13. + Exod. xxxi. 9. ‡ Hermes. Of the connectives employed in combining the parts of a sentence. THE only other instance of abbreviation which I recollect in the pronouns, is the frequent suppression of the relatives who, whom, and which. This, I imagine, is an ellipsis peculiar to the English, though it may be exemplified from authors of the first note; and that too in all the cases following; first, when the pronoun is the nominative to the verb; secondly, when it is the accusative of an active verb; and thirdly, when it is governed by a preposition. Of the first case, which is rather the most unfavourable of the three, you have an example in these words, "I had several men died "in my ship of calentures *" for "who died." Of the second, which is the most tolerable, in these, They who affect to guess at the objects they can"not see t," for "which they cannot see." Of the third, in these, "To contain the spirit of anger, is the "worthiest discipline we can put ourselves to ‡," for "to which we can put ourselves." Sometimes, especially in verse, both the preposition and the pronoun are omitted, as in the speech of Cardinal Wolsey, after his disgrace, Had I but serv'd my God with half the zeal To complete the construction of this member of the sentence, the words with which must be supplied immediately after" zeal." Concerning this idiom I shall * Gull. Trav. Honyhnhmns. Spectator, No. 438. T. † Bol. Phil. Es. II. Sect. i. § Shakespeare's Henry VIII. only observe, in general, that as it is the most licentious, and therefore the most exceptionable in the language, it ought to be used very cautiously. In some cases it may occasion obscurity; in others, by giving a maimed appearance to the sentence, it may occasion inelegance. In both these it ought carefully to be avoided *. THE only other part of speech which partakes of the weakness remarked in conjunctions, relatives, and auxiliary verbs, is prepositions. These are expressive of the relations which substantives, as the signs of things, bear to one another, or to the verbs, the symbols of agency with which they are construed. They 66 * In French, by an idiom not unlike, the antecedent is often dropt, and the relative retained, as in this example, " Il ne faut pas "se fier à qui a beaucoup d'ambition." "A qui," for "à celui qui." The idiom is not the same in Italian, for though the an tecedent is sometimes dropt, there is properly no ellipsis, as the relative is changed; as thus, "Lo stampatore a chi legge," for a quel che. This is exactly similar to the English what for that which. By poetic licence there is sometimes an ellipsis of the antecedent in English verse, as in this line of Dryden, Georg. 2. Which who would learn as soon may tell the sands. Who for be who. More rarely when the antecedent is the regi men of a verb, as I gladly shunn'd, who gladly fled from me. Rom. & Juliet. Who for him who; but never when it is the regimen of a prepo sition. Of the connectives employed in combining the parts of a sentence. answer the same purpose in connecting words, which the conjunctions answer in connecting clauses. For the same reason the shorter these particles are, they are the better. The less time you bestow on the insignificant parts of a sentence, the more significant will the whole appear. Accordingly, in all languages the prepositions are commonly among their shortest words. With us such of them as are in most frequent use, consist of one short syllable only *. And even those which occur seldomer, rarely exceed two syllables †. * Such are, at, in, of, from, till, to, for, by, through, near, with, on, off. + Such are, above, below, along, across, amid, around, beyond, within, without, among, between, except. It may not be amiss to observe, that though the French in the commonest prepositions have the advantage of us, by reason of their frequent elisions, the coalition of some of them with the article, and their pronominal particles y and en, they have nevertheless greatly the disadvantage in the less common, which with them are not so properly denominated prepositions as prepositive phrases that supply the place of prepositions. In evidence of this take the French translation of all the dissyllabic prepositions above mentioned, except the three last. These are, au dessus de, au dessous de, le long de, au travers de, au milieu de, autour de, au dela de, au dedans de, au dehors de. On comparing the two languages merely in point of vivacity, the French, I think, excels in the colloquial and epistolary style, where the recurrence must be frequent to those petty aids of discourse, the prepositions first mentioned, and where there is little scope for composition, as there are almost no complex sentences. The English, on the contrary, excels in the more elaborate style of history, phi On this part of speech the improvements have not been so considerable (nor was there equal need), as on the conjunctions and the relatives. Yet even here the progress of, taste hath not been entirely without effect. The until and unto, are now almost always, and the upon, very often, contracted into till and to, and on. The to and the for are, in some cases, without occasioning any inconvenience, and with a sensible advantage in point of energy, discarded altogether, Thus we say, "Forgive us our debts," and not," forgive to us our debts." “I have gotten you a li"cence," and not, "I have gotten a licence for you." The same manner hath also obtained in some other 66 losophy, and oratory, where a greater variety of prepositions is needed, and where there is more frequent occasion of recurring to the conjunctions. These indeed are rather unwieldy in French; and I am not sure but a tacit conviction of this is the cause that a sort of detached aphoristic style is getting much into vogue with their authors. I shall remark here also, that their vivacity of expression is often attained at the expence of perspicuity. "La personne qui l'aime," may mean either, "The person who loves him," "The person who loves her," or, The person who "loves it." Nay more, though there is a difference in writing between qui l'aime and qu'il aime, there is no difference in sound, and therefore the same phrase spoken may also "whom he loves." In Italian there are several periphrastic pre 66 66 66 mean, 66 "The person positions in the same taste with the French, as, a l'intorno di, di là di, in mezzo di, dentro di, fuori di, di sopra di, di sotto di. There are only two prepositions in French which we are obliged to express by circumlocution. These are, chez, at the house of, and selon, according to. |