On scientific principles, our _connectives_, commonly denominated
prepositions and conjunctions, are but one part of speech, the
distinction between them being merely technical. Some conjunctions
unite only words, and some prepositions connect sentences. They are
derived from nouns and verbs; and the time has been, when, perhaps,
in our language, they did not perform the office of connectives.
"I wish you to believe, _that_ I would not wilfully hurt a fly."
Here, in the opinion of H. Tooke, our modern conjunction _that_, is
merely a demonstrative adjective, in a disguised form; and he
attempts to prove it by the following resolution: "I would not
wilfully hurt a fly. I wish you to believe _that [assertion_."] Now,
if we admit, that _that_ is an adjective in the latter construction,
it does not necessarily follow, that it is the same part of speech,
nor that its associated meaning is precisely the same, in the former
construction. Instead of expressing our ideas in two detached
sentences, by the former phraseology we have a quicker and closer
transition of thought, and both the mode of employing _that_, and
its _inferential_ meaning, are changed. Moreover, if we examine the
meaning of each of these constructions, taken as a whole, we shall
find, that they do not both convey the same ideas. By the latter, I
assert, positively, that "I would not wilfully hurt a fly:" whereas,
by the former, I merely _wish you to believe_ that "I would not
wilfully hurt a fly;" but I do not _affirm_, that as a fact.
_That_ being the past part, of _thean_, to get, take, assume, by
rendering it as a _participle_, instead of an adjective, we should
come nearer to its primitive character. Thus, "I would not wilfully
hurt a fly. I wish you to believe the _assumed [fact_ or
_statement_;] or, the fact _assumed_ or _taken_."
_If_, (formerly written _gif, give, gin_,) as previously stated, is
the imperative of the Anglo-Saxon verb _gifan_, to give. In
imitation of Horne Tooke, some of our modern philosophical writers
are inclined to teach pupils to render it as a verb. Thus, "I will
go, _if_ he will accompany me:"--"He will accompany me.
_Grant_--_give_ that [fact] I will go." For the purpose of
ascertaining the _primitive_ meaning of this word, I have no
objection to such a resolution; but, by it, do we get the exact
meaning and force of _if_ as it is applied in our modern, refined
state of the language? I _trow_ not. But, admitting we do, does this
prove that such a mode of resolving sentences can be advantageously
adopted by learners in common schools? I presume it can not be
denied, that instead of teaching the learner to express himself
correctly in modern English, such a resolution is merely making him
familiar with an ancient and barbarous construction which modern
refinement has rejected. Our forefathers, I admit, who were governed
by those laws of necessity which compel all nations in the early and
rude state of their language, to express themselves in short,
detached sentences, employed _if_ as a verb when they used the
following circumlocution: "My son will reform. _Give that fact_. I
will forgive him." But in the present, improved state of our
language, by using _if_ as a _conjunction_, (for I maintain that it
is one,) we express the same thought more briefly; and our modern
mode of expression has, too, a decisive advantage over the ancient,
not only in point of elegance, but also in perspicuity and force. In
Scotland and the north of England, some people still make use of
_gin_, a contraction of _given:_ thus, "I will pardon my son, _gin_
he reform." But who will contend, that they speak pure English?
But perhaps the advocates of what _they_ call a philosophical
development of language, will say, that by their resolution of
sentences, they merely supply an ellipsis. If, by an ellipsis, they
mean such a one as is necessary, to the grammatical construction, I
cannot accede to their assumption. In teaching grammar, as well as
in other things, we ought to avoid extremes:--we ought neither to
pass superficially over an ellipsis necessary to the sense of a
phrase, nor to put modern English to the blush, by adopting a mode
of resolving sentences that would entirely change the character of
our language, and carry the learner back to the Vandalic age.
_But_ comes from the Saxon verb, _beon-utan_, to be-out. "All were
well _but (be-out, leave-out)_ the stranger." "Man is _but_ a reed,
floating on the current of time." Resolution: "Man is a reed,
floating on the current of time; _but (be-out_ this fact) he is not
a stable being."
_And--aned, an'd, and_, is the past part. of _ananad_, to add, join.
_A, an, ane_, or _one_, from the same verb, points out whatever is
_aned, oned_, or made _one. And_ also refers to the thing that is
_joined_ to, _added_ to, or _made one_ with, some other person or
thing mentioned. "Julius _and_ Harriet will make a happy pair."
Resolution: "Julius, Harriet _joined, united_, or _aned_, will make
a happy pair;" i.e. Harriet _made one_ with Julius; will make a
happy pair.
_For_ means _cause_.
_Because_--_be-cause_, is a compound of the verb _be_, and the noun
_cause_. It retains the meaning of both; as, "I believe the maxim,
_for_ I know it to be true;"--"I believe the maxim, _be-cause_ I
know it to be true;" i.e. the _cause_ of my belief, _be_, or _is_, I
know it to be true.
_Nor_ is a contraction of _ne or. Ne_ is a contraction of _not_, and
_or_, of _other. Nor_ is, _not other_-wise: _not_ in the _other_ way
or manner.
_Else_ is the imperative of _alesan, unless_, of _onlesan_, and
_lest_, the past part. of _lesan_, all signifying to dismiss,
release, loosen, set free. "He will be punished, _unless_ he
repent;"--"_Unless, release, give up_, (the fact) he repents he will
be punished." _Though_ is the imperative of the Saxon verb
_thafigan_, to allow, and _yet_ of _getan_, to get. _Yet_ is simply,
_get_; ancient _g_ is the modern _y_. "_Though_ he slay me, _yet_
will I trust in him:--_Grant_ or _allow_ (the fact) he slay me,
_get_, or _retain_ (the opposite fact) I will trust in
him."
* * * * *