66

only observe, in general, that as it is the most licentious, and therefore the most exceptionable in the language, it ought to be used very cautiously. In some cases it may occasion obscurity; in others, by giving a maimed appearance to the sentence, it may occasion inelegance. In both these it ought carefully to be avoided *.

THE only other part of speech which partakes of the weakness remarked in conjunctions, relatives, and auxiliary verbs, is prepositions. These are expressive of the relations which substantives, as the signs of things, bear to one another, or to the verbs, the symbols of agency with which they are construed. They

* In French, by an idiom not unlike, the antecedent is often dropt, and the relative retained, as in this example, “ Il ne faut pas se fier à qui a beaucoup d'ambition." "A qui," for "à celui qui." The idiom is not the same in Italian, for though the an... tecedent is sometimes dropt, there is properly no ellipsis, as the relative is changed; as thus, "Lo stampatore a chi legge," for a quel che. This is exactly similar to the English what for that which. By poetic licence there is sometimes an ellipsis of the antecedent in English verse, as in this line of Dryden, Georg. 2.

Which who would learn as soon may tell the sands.

Who for be who. More rarely when the antecedent is the regimen of a verb, as

I gladly shunn'd, who gladly fled from me.

Ram. & Juliet.

Who for him who; but never when it is the regimen of a prepo

sition.

Of the connectives employed in combining the parts of a sentence.

answer the same purpose in connecting words, which the conjunctions answer in connecting clauses. For the same reason the shorter these particles are, they are the better. The less time you bestow on the insignificant parts of a sentence, the more significant will the whole appear. Accordingly, in all languages the prepositions are commonly among their shortest words. With us such of them as are in most frequent use, consist of one short syllable only *. And even those which occur seldomer, rarely exceed two syllables +.

*Such are, at, in, of, from, till, to, for, by, through, near, with, on, off.

+ Such are, above, below, along, across, amid, around, beyond, within, without, among, between, except. It may not be amiss to observe, that though the French in the commonest prepositions have the advantage of us, by reason of their frequent elisions, the coalition of some of them with the article, and their pronominal particles y and en, they have nevertheless greatly the disadvantage in the less common, which with them are not so properly denominated prepositions as prepositive phrases that supply the place of prepositions. In evidence of this take the French translation of all the dissyllabic prepositions above mentioned, except the three last. These are, au dessus de, au dessous de, le long de, au travers de, au milieu de, autour de, au dela de, au dedans de, au dehors de. On comparing the two languages merely in point of vivacity, the French, I think, excels in the colloquial and epistolary style, where the recurrence must be frequent to those petty aids of discourse, the prepositions first mentioned, and where there is little scope for composition, as there are almost no complex sentences. The English, on the contrary, excels in the more elaborate style of history, phi

On this part of speech the improvements have not! been so considerable (nor was there equal need), as on the conjunctions and the relatives. Yet even here the progress of taste hath not been entirely without effect. The until and unto, are now almost always, and the upon, very often, contracted into till and to, and

The to and the for are, in some cases, without occasioning any inconvenience, and with a sensible. advantage in point of energy, discarded altogether. Thus we say, "Forgive us our debts," and not," forgive to us our debts." "I have gotten you a li"cence," and not, "I have gotten a licence for you." The same manner hath also obtained in some other

losophy, and oratory, where a greater variety of prepositions is needed, and where there is more frequent occasion of recurring to the conjunctions. These indeed are rather unwieldy in French; and I am not sure but a tacit conviction of this is the cause that a sort of detached aphoristic style is getting much into vogue with their authors. I shall remark here also, that their vivacity of expression is often attained at the expence of perspicuity. "La personne qui l'aime," may mean either, "The person who loves "him," "The person who loves her," or, "The person who loves it." Nay more, though there is a difference in writing between qui l'aime and qu'il aime, there is no difference in sound, and therefore the same phrase spoken may also mean, 66 The person "whom he loves." In Italian there are several periphrastic prepositions in the same taste with the French, as, a l'intorno di, di là di, in mezzo di, dentro di, fuori di, di sopra di, di sotto di. There are only two prepositions in French which we are obliged to express by circumlocution. These are, chez, at the house of, and selon, according to.

66

Of the connectives employed in combining the parts of a sentence.

modern tongues. What I am next to mention is peculiar to us, the preposition of is frequently supplied by the possessive case of the noun. Lastly, which is a real acquisition in respect of vivacity, when two or more nouns are conjoined in the same construction, it is not necessary in English as in French, that the preposition of the first be repeated before each of the subsequent nouns. This ought to be done only in those cases wherein either perspicuity or harmony requires it.

Now that I am on the subject of the prepositions, it will not be improper to consider a peculiarity which is often to be found with us in their arrangement. In every other language the preposition is almost constantly perfixed to the noun which it governs; in English it is sometimes placed not only after the noun, but at a considerable distance from it, as in the following example, "The infirmary was indeed never so full as on this day, which I was at some loss to account for, till, upon my going abroad, I observed, that it was an easterly wind *.” Here no fewer

than seven words intervene between the relative which and the preposition for belonging to it. Besides, the preposition doth not here precede its regimen, but follow it. One would imagine, to consider the matter abstractly, that this could not fail in a language like ours, which admits so few inflections, to create obscurity. Yet this in fact is seldom or never the

*Spectator, No. 440. C.

consequence. Indeed the singularity of the idiom hath made some critics condemn it absolutely. That there is nothing analogous in any known tongue ancient or modern, hath appeared to them a sufficient reason. I own it never appeared so to me.

If we examine the matter independently of custom, we shall find that the preposition is just as closely connected with the word, whether verb or noun, governing, as with the word, whether noun or pronoun, governed. It is always expressive of the relation which the one bears to the other, or of the ac-tion of the one upon the other. And as the cause in the order of Nature precedes the effect, the most proper situation for the preposition is immediately after the word governing, and before the word governed. This will accordingly in all languaees be found the most common situation. But there are cases in all languages wherein it is even necessary, that the word governing should come after the word governed. In such cases it is impossible that the preposition should be situated as above described Only half of the description is then attainable; and the speaker is reduced to this alternative; either to make the preposition follow the word governing, in which case it must be detached from the word governed; or to make it precede the word governed, in which case it must be detached from the word governing. The choice in itself arbitrary custom hath determined in every tongue,