Of the connectives employed in combining the parts of a sentence. verb is ascertained by the infinitive or the participle which follows the auxiliar in the compound tenses of the active voice, and always by the participle in the passive. The auxiliaries themselves serve only to modify the verb, by adding the circumstances of time, affirmation, supposition, interrogation, and some others. An abridgment in these, therefore, which are but weak, though not the weakest parts of discourse, conduceth to strengthen the expression. But there are not many cases wherein this is practicable. Sometimes had supplies emphatically the place of would have, and were of would be. An instance of the first we have in the words of Martha to our Saviour.Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died." The last clause would have been feebler, had it been," my brother would not have died." An example of the second is the words of the Israelites on hearing the report of the spies. "Were it not better for us to return into Egypt †?" for "Would it not "be better?" 66 66 BUT, to come to the consideration of the relatives; the first real improvement which taste hath produced here, is the dismission of the article from its wonted attendance on the pronoun which. The definite article could nowhere be less necessary, as the antecedent always defines the meaning. Another effect of the same cause is the introduction of what instead of that which, as, "I remember what you told me;" otherwise," that which you told me." Another is the extending of the use of the word whose, by making it serve as the possessive of the pronoun which. THE distinction between who and which is now perfectly established in the language. The former relates only to persons, the latter to things. But this distinction, though a real advantage in point of perspicuity and precision, affects not much the vivacity of the style. The possessive of who is properly whose, the pronoun which, originally indeclinable, had no possessive. This want was supplied in the common periphrastic manner, by the help of the preposition and the article. But, as this could not fail to enfeeble the expression, when so much time was given to mere conjunctives, all our best authors, both in prose and in verse, have come now regularly to adopt in such cases the possessive of who; and thus have substituted one syllable in the room of three, as in the example following: "Philosophy, whose end is to instruct us in the knowledge of Nature,"--for" Philosophy, the end of which is to instruct us."-Some grammarians remonstrate. But it ought to be remembered, that use well established must give law to grammar, and not grammar to use. Nor is this acceptation of the word whose of recent introduction into the language. It occurs even in Shakespeare, and almost uniformly in authors of any character since his time. Neither does there appear to be any inconvenience arising from this Of the connectives employed in combining the parts of a sentence. usage. The connection with the antecedent is commonly so close, as to remove all possible ambiguity. If, however, in any instance, the application should appear ambiguous, in that instance, without question, the periphrasis ought to be preferred. But the term thus applied to things could not be considered as improper, any longer than it was by general use peculiarly appropriated to persons, and therefore considered merely as an inflection of the pronoun who. Now, that cannot be affirmed to be the case at present. THOUGH to limit the signification of the pronouns would at first seem conducive to precision, it may sometimes be followed with inconveniencies which would more than counterbalance the advantage.— "That," says Dr Lowth, " is used indifferently both of persons and things, but perhaps would be more properly confined to the latter *" Yet there are cases wherein we cannot conveniently dispense with this relative as applied to persons; as first, after who the interrogative, "Who that has any sense of reli gion would have argued thus?" Secondly, when persons make but a part of the antecedent: "The 66 men and things that he hath studied, have not con"tributed to the improvement of his morals." In neither of these examples could any other relative be used. In the instances specified by Dr Priestley †, the that, if not necessary, is at least more elegant than * Introduction.... Sentences. + Grammar....Pronouns. 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 †." 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. 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, 66 Had I but serv'd my God with half the zeal I serv'd my king § 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. + Bol. Phil. Es. II. Sect. i. Shakespeare's Henry VIII, |