A Conjunction is an active part of speech, that connectively or
disjunctively joins together words and sentences, as the names of
actions, as prepositions do those of substances. They have been divided
by grammarians into various sorts; tho’ the only significant distinction
seems to be into copulatives, connectives, and disjunctives, as the two
former sorts absolutely connect and coalesce both the sentences and
their meaning, or when the expression is only of mere local or inanimate
motion, barely move on, connect, and continue the sentence or discourse,
without any compatibility of meaning; and the latter sorts conditionally,
exceptionably, or interrogatively do the same. Of the first class are,
and or ond, _on in division or discourse_, but, _be it as or by man and
things soon_, yet, _it is or springs_, also, _on so_, likewise, _the
same way_, still, _light on things_, altho’, _upon to_, notwithstanding,
_not opposing the former action_, however, _be the spring of action as
it may_, nevertheless, _without any spring_, as, _the earth seen_, as
well as, _its surface or under it out of sight_, for, _the part in the
circle_, therefore, _the parts and spring within the circle_, wherefore,
_the parts in which circle_, because, _by our own actions_, that,
_towards possession_. And the disjunctives are the following; or, _the
promiscuous things within the circle of possession_, either, _action
or matter_, nor, _not the things promiscuously within the circle of
possession_, neither, _no action or rest_, till or untill, _during the
spring of light on the possessions_, whilst or while, _the action of the
upper light on the possessions_, if, _life or is it life?_ unless, _my
spring out_, except, _acting from the parts of possession_, besides, _by
the side_; and with which sense the Welsh, Greek and Latin conjunctions
correspond, as appears by an analysis thereof at the end of this essay.
An example of their use and construction.—Was it pride _and_ folly, _or_
avarice and envy, that caused the confusion of human speech? It was
_neither_ the one or the other, _but_ the effect of some supernatural
cause, _as_, the scripture informs us. _Nor_ is it probable, that so
great a deviation could have naturally happened; _unless_ there was some
very great wilful perversion of the original language, _whilst_ mankind
were contending for possessions _as well as_ power. _Nevertheless_
the first language is _still_ recoverable, _notwithstanding_ its many
divisions and great disguise, _if_ the subject be adverted, after a
right method. And _altho’_ it may be _also_ attended with some labor to
mankind, _except_ those already skilled in languages, _yet_ it may be
attained by any English reader, that will endeavour it, _for_, _however_
languages may differ, as to the manner of combination or construction
of names and sentences, they are certainly one and the same in their
principles, and _likewise_ in their particles; _because_ the letters and
particles of all languages appear by this essay to be still the same.
_Besides_, as human speech derives its origin from a supernatural cause,
its various dialects cannot differ as to their materials. _Wherefore_
then so many different opinions concerning these matters, _but_ from our
own remissness? Let us _therefore_ exert our faculties in the laudable
undertaking of recovering the first universal language, _that_ we may be
thereby restored to our senses, which seem to be equally perverted.