(Vol. ix., p. 180.)
PROFESSOR BOOLE'S communication on the above question reminds me of some
remarks of mine, published in an article on Sir John Stoddart's _Philosophy
of Language_, in the _North British Review_ for November, 1850. In
reference to the opinion maintained by Sir John Stoddart and Dr. Latham,
that the conjunction always connects sentences, the preposition words, it
is observed:
"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 I bear to my much
honoured and good friend, Mr. Matthew Stradling, Gent., I do bequeath
unto the said Matthew Stradling, Gent., _all my black and white
horses_.' The testator had six black horses, six white horses, and six
pied horses. 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 {280} 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, not a conjunction,
or must we modify the definitions of these two parts of speech?"
The following definitions are finally proposed in place of the ordinary
ones:
"A preposition is a part of speech annexed to a noun or verb in a
proposition, and serving to connect it with a noun or pronoun by which
it is limited, as the subject or predicate of that proposition."
"A conjunction is a part of speech serving to unite two propositions as
parts of the same complex assertion, or two words as similar parts of
the subject or predicate of one proposition. By _similar parts_ it is
meant that the words so united stand in similar relations to the term
to which they belong. For example, 1. As attributes, both qualifying a
subject, 'Sic bonus et sapiens dignis ait esse paratus.' 2. As
prepositions, both introducing limiting nouns 'without money and
without price.' 3. As substantives, both forming parts of a collective
subject, 'two and three are five.' Whereas with the preposition, the
words united are not similar, but opposed, the _limiting_ and the
_limited_ notion."
While differing from some of PROFESSOR BOOLE'S views on the relation of
logic to mathematics, I fully agree with him that the true functions of the
several parts of speech must be determined by an analysis of the laws of
thought. Both grammar and logic might be considerably improved by an
accurate development on psychological principles.