Dr. Latham (_Outlines of Logic_, p. 21., 1847, and _English Language_, p.
510., 2nd edition) defines the conjunction to be a part of speech that
connects _propositions_, not _words_. His doctrine is so palpably and
demonstrably false, that I am somewhat at a loss to understand how a man of
his penetration can be so far deceived by a crotchet as to be blind to the
host of examples which point to the direct converse of his doctrine. Let
the learned Doctor try to resolve the sentence, _All men are either
two-legged, one-legged, or no-legged_, into three constituent propositions.
It cannot be done; _either_ and _or_ are here conjunctions which connect
words and not propositions. In the example, _John and James carry a
basket_, it is of course quite plain that the _logic_ of the matter is that
_John carries one portion of the basket, and James carries the rest_. But
to identify these two propositions with the first mentioned, is to confound
grammar with logic. The former deals with the method of expression, the
latter with the method of stating (in thought) and syllogising. To take
another example, _Charles and Thomas stole all the apples_. The fact
probably was, that Charles' pockets contained some of the apples, and
Thomas' pockets contained all the rest. But the business of grammar in the
above sentence is to regulate the _form_ of the expression, not to reason
upon the _matter_ expressed. A little thought will soon convince any person
accustomed to these subjects that _conjunctions always connect words, not
propositions_. The only work in which I leave seen Dr. Latham's fundamental
error exposed, is in Boole's _Mathematical Analysis of Logic_; the learned
author, though he seems unsettled on many matters of logic and metaphysics,
has clearly made up his mind on the point now under discussion. He says:
"The proposition, every animal is _either_ rational _or_ irrational,
cannot be resolved into, _Either_ every animal is rational, _or_ every
animal is irrational. The former belong to pure categoricals, to latter
to hypotheticals [Query _disjunctives_]. In _singular_ propositions
such conversions would seem to be allowable. This animal is _either_
rational _or_ irrational, is equivalent to, _Either_ this animal is
rational, _or_ it is irrational. This peculiarity of _singular_
propositions would almost justify our ranking them, though truly
universals, in a separate class, as Ramus and his followers did."--P.
59.
This certainly seems unanswerable.
If Dr. Latham is a reader of "N. & Q.," I should be glad if he would give
his reasons for adhering to his original doctrine in the face of such facts
as those I have instanced.