Of the connectives employed in combining the parts of a sentence. and a relative, was annexed to most of them. Two centuries ago we should not have said, "After I have spoken," but " After that I have spoken." In like manner, we should then have said, because that, before that, although that, whilst that, until that, unless that, and seeing that. Sometimes they even used, if that, for that, and when that. This particle seems to have been added, in order to distinguish the conjunction from the preposition or the adverb, as the word to which it was annexed, was often susceptible of both uses, and sometimes of all the three *. But the event hath shown that this expedient is quite superfluous. The situation marks sufficiently the character of the particle, so that you will rarely find an ambiguity arising from this variety in the application. The dis que, bien que, de *The same manner of forming the conjunctions is retained to this day, both in French and in Italian. They are in French, après que, parce que, avant tandis peur que, que, jusqu'à ce que, à moins que, depuis que; in Italian, subito che, percio che, prima che, ancora che, per tema che, mentre che, sin tanio che, altro che, da che. A similar effect of the improvement of taste, though not in the same degree, may be observed in both these languages, to that which hath been remarked in English. Some drawling conjunctions formerly used, are now become obsolete, as in French, encore bien que, bien entendu que, comme ainsi soit que; in Italian, concio fosse cosa che, per laqual cosa che. The necessary aid of the particle que in French for expressing the most different and even contrary relations, hath induced their celebrated critic and grammarian, Abbé Girard, to style it the conductive conjunction. The same appellation may be assigned with equal propriety to the che in Italian. use therefore of such an unnecessary appendage is a real improvement. THE relatives, as was hinted before, partake of the nature of conjunction, both as they are the instruments of linking the members of sentences together, and as they have no independent signification of their own. These, when in coupling the clauses of a paragraph they are joined with a preposition, form what may properly be termed a sort of complex conjunctions. Such are, according to the original form of the words, upon which, unto which, with that, by which, or, according to a method of combining entirely ana logical in our language, whereupon, whereunto, therewith, whereby. In the use of such drawling conjunctions, whether in the loose or in the compound form, there is a considerable risk, as is evident from the principles above explained, of rendering the sentence tiresome, and the expression languid. SOME writers, sensible of the effect, seem totally to have mistaken the cause. They have imputed the flatness to the combination, imagining that the uncompounded form of the preposition and the pronoun would nowise affect the vivacity of the style. Lord Shaftesbury was of this opinion, and his authority hath misled other writers. His words are: "They "have of late, it's true, reformed in some measure the "gouty joints and darning work of whereunto's where"by's, thereof's, therewith's, and the rest of this kind? 66 Of the connectives employed in combining the parts of a sentence. by which complicated periods are so curiously strung, "or hooked on, one to another, after the long-spun "manner of the bar or pulpit *." Accordingly several authors have been so far swayed by this judgment, as to condemn, in every instance, this kind of composition of the adverbs where, here, and there, with prepositions. But if we would be satisfied that the fault, where there is a fault, doth not lie in the composition, let us make the experiment on one of the long-spun complicated periods of which the author speaks, by resolving the whereupon into upon which, by saying unto which, for whereunto, and so of the rest, and I am greatly deceived, if we find the darning work less coarse, or the joints less gouty, than they were before this correction. And if in any case the combined shall displease more than the primitive form, I suspect that the disuse will be found the cause and not the consequence of its displeasing. COMPOSITIONS of this sort with dissyllabic propositions are now mostly obsolete, and it would be silly to attempt to revive them. But with several of the monosyllabic prepositions they are still used. I shall therefore here offer a few arguments against dispos * Misc. v. chap. 1. For the same reason we should condemn the quapropter, quamobrem, quandoquidem, quemadmodum, of the Latin, whose composition and use are pretty similar. To these a good writer will not frequently recur; but their best authors have not thought fit to reject them altogether. sessing them of the ground which they still retain. First, they occasion a little variety. And even this, however inconsiderable, unless some inconvenience could be pleaded on the opposite side, ought, in conjunctions especially, for a reason to be given afterwards, to determine the matter. Secondly, they sometimes, without lengthening the sentence, interrupt a run of monosyllables (a thing extremely disagreeable to some critics), very opportunely substituting a dissyllable instead of two of the former. Thirdly, they in certain cases even prevent a little obscurity, or at least inelegance. It was observed, on a former occasion, that when any relative occurs oftener than once in a sentence, it will seldom be compatible with the laws of perspicuity, that it should refer to different antecedents. And even if such change of the reference should not darken the sense, it rarely fails to injure the beauty of the expression. Yet this fault in long periods and other complex sentences, is often scarcely avoidable. Sometimes the only way of avoiding it is by changing an of which, in which, or by which, into whereof, wherein, or whereby. This will both prevent the too frequent recurrence of the syllable which, none of the most grateful in the language; and elude the apparent inaccuracy of using the same sound in reference to different things. Fourthly, more is sometimes expressed by the compound than by the primitive form, and consequently there are occasions on which it ought to be preferred. The pronouns this, that, and which, do not so natu Of the connectives employed in combining the parts of a sentence. rally refer to a clause or a sentence, as to a word; nor do the two first refer so naturally to a plural as to a singular; whereas the compounds of bere, there, and where, do with equal propriety refer to all these. Few will pretend that the place of therefore would be properly supplied by for that, or that with what would be in every case an equivalent for wherewith, or after this, for hereafter; but even in other instances not quite so clear, we shall on examination find a diffe rence. In such a sentence as this, for example. “ I "flattered her vanity, lied to her, and abused her companions, and thereby wrought myself gradually "into her favour;" it is evident that the words by that would here be intolerable; and if you should say by these actions, or by so doing, the expression would be remarkably heavier and more awkward. THE genuine source of most of these modern refinements, is, in my opinion, an excessive bias to every thing that bears a resemblance to what is found in France, and even a prejudice against every thing to which there is nothing in France corresponding; Whose manners still our tardy apish nation Hence it proceeds, that we not only adopt their words and idioms, but even imitate their defects, and act as if we thought it presumption to have any words or phrases of our own, to which they have nothing cor + Shakespeare, Richard II. |