modifications whenever the copulative is omitted. When co-ordinate modifications are themselves attended with modifications, a comma is sometimes used in connection with the copulative.

(28) There is a variety of this kind of construction in which the coordinate members are connected in pairs, and a comma placed between each pair. Example: "Interest and ambition, honor and shame, friendship and enmity, gratitude and revenge(,) are the prime movers in public transactions." Here the last comma seems to us improper. EXERCISES I., II., &c.-Furnish examples of co-ordinate propositions, members, &c.

§ 146. (1) This is, perhaps, the proper place to make some remarks on the occasional employment of the co-ordinate form of construction instead of a compound construction; in other words, of a proposition independent in form and connected by the copulative, yet, in use, having the force of an accessory, and serving the purpose of an accessory. We have already adverted to this matter in the end of the section on accessories of time, and in treating of participial constructions. (See §§ 129: 9, and 143: 16.)

We shall notice only two distinct cases of this employment of the construction with the copulative. (2) The first is to serve instead of an accessory or an infinitive of purpose. We may give as examples, Will you not come, and dine with us? Why does he not go, and tell his father? Come and see us. He came yesterday and visited us. We shall go to-morrow, and see the exhibition. These are equivalent to Will you not come to dine with us? or, Will you not come that you may dine with us, &c. The coming is for the purpose of dining? the going for the purpose of telling, &c. (3) Such forms of expression are colloquial, perhaps they might be called vulgar. They are more commonly employed in the interrogative and imperative, than in the assertive form of propositions. We suspect that they are used imperatively and interrogatively in the colloquial intercourse even of good and well-educated society, still they lack precision and elegance. Examples may be found in our standard authors; but few educated men of the present day would be willing to introduce such forms in any kind of dignified discourse. We give an example from Shakspeare:

(28) Describe a variety of this kind of construction, and the mode of interpunction, illustrating by an example.

§ 146. (1) Tell what is said of the use of co-ordinate instead of compound construction. (2) Describe the first case of this use, illustrating by examples. (3) Repeat the substance of the remarks on this use; give example from Shakspeare.

"Could you on this fair mountain leave to feed,

And batten on this moor?"

That you might batten, or to batten on this moor.

(4) In this case it is the last of the two connectod propositions that serves the purpose of an accessory.

(5) The second case of the employment of co-ordinate for compound construction is that in which one of the two connected propositions always, we believe, the first one-serves instead of an accessory of time, or instead of the participial construction which serves the same purpose. (6) This employment of the co-ordinate form of construction is sanctioned by far more general and more respectable usage. It may be regarded as a settled idiom of our language. We use this kind of construction very generally, when, in the ancient languages, a participial construction is employed. (7) Let us illustrate this usage by a few examples. "He opened his mouth, and taught them." The original expresses what is contained in the first of these propositions by a participial construction-a participle modifying the subject noun of the second proposition. The literal translation is, Having opened his mouth, or, perhaps, rather, Opening his mouth, he taught them. The latter form expresses the intended connection of the thought more exactly than the authorized version. But the translation, as it stands, is more consonant to the English idiom, especially to the idiom of the period when the translation was made, before the complicated, exotic constructions fashionable in the times of the Commonwealth were forced upon our language. Even to this day, it is less stiff than the Participial form of expression. We have similar examples in the following passages: "The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side". The same day Jesus, having come out of the house, sat, &c. or, with full construction, The same day, when Jesus had come out of the house, he sat, &c. "He came to the first, and said." (Greek, Having come, or coming to the first, he said.) “And he answered, and said." "And he came to the second, and said," &c. In all these cases a participial construction is employed in the original Greek. (See Acts 18: 1, 2, and the New Testament, passim.) (a)

(8) In the following example from Shakspeare the latter of two

(4) Which proposition in this case serves the purpose of an accessory?

(5) Describe the second case of this employment of co-ordinate construction. (6) Repeat the remarks made on this use. (7) Illustrate by examples,

'8) Repeat what is said of the example from Shakspeare.

propositions in the co-ordinate form of construction is equivalent to a conditional or concessive accessory.

"Can one be pardoned, and retain the offence?"

Here the conjunctive words, though or if or whilst, would, perhaps, more precisely indicate the relation between the two propositions. It would be still more explicit, though awkward and flat beside the original, to say, May one who retains the offence be pardoned?

(9) In all cases two propositions connected by AND may be considered, as regards form of language, co-ordinate or independent. Their true relation, as regards sense in such exceptional cases as we have presented above, is to be ascertained from the nature of the thought. This relation is indicated by no distinct grammatical contrivance, except we consider juxtaposition in this light.

NOTE. (a) We may be allowed to observe, in connection with this subject, that the translator of the Book of Acts has improperly introduced the copulative in a great number of passages where the employment of it cannot be justified by a reference to idiomatic usage, and when it injures or perverts, to a certain degree, the sense of the original. We refer to Acts 1:16; 2:29, 37, and 13: 15, &c., in which we find the expression, "Men and brethren." The translator has indeed in all these examples placed and in italics, indicating that it is not in the original. But this does not help the reader to ascertain the exact sense of the original. The word "brethren" is in the original a noun in apposition in all these passages. The English reader would never find this out from the present translation, even with the help of the italics, because men brethren is not a usual form of apposition in our language. With the Greeks it was. They employed currently such expressions as men soldiers, men Romans, men Athenians, &c., in which the latter noun serves to designate the employment, the nation, &c., of the men. These expressions we uniformly translate soldiers, Romans, Greeks, &c., suppressing the word men, in accommodation to the English idigm. The translator ought to have done the same in the passages above referred to, and in several others, which the reader can readily find by the help of a concordance. In Acts 7: 2 and 22: 1, we find the expression "Men, brethren, and fathers," making the hearers addressed in these passages by Stephen and the Apostle Paul to consist of three distinct classes, viz., men, brethren, and fathers a very illogical division; but it is the division of the translator, not of Stephen or the Apostle Paul. The expression rendered into correct idiomatic English is, simply, Brethren and Fathers. Wiclif renders these passages correctly, "Britheren and fadris," and Acts 1: 16 and 2: 29, 37, &c.,

(9) Repeat the remark in reference to the manner in which we may always regard propositions connected by AND.

"Britheren."

This makes it appear the more strange that the translators in the authorized version, and the translators of the 16th century, Tyndale, Cranmer, &c., should have overlooked the Greek idiom to which we have referred.

§ 147. II. ADVERSATIVE OR EXCEPTIVE CONNECTION.—(1) The form of expression, "John arrived in the morning, and went away at noon," is that which we would employ, if it were our purpose to give another person simply an account of John's movements. But suppose a friend calls at our house expecting to meet John, and tells us that he has come, because he heard that John arrived this morning, we would naturally say in reply, "John arrived indeed this morning, BUT he went away at noon." Here wo are not to give simply an account of John's movements, but to inform our friend why he does not find John at our house, though he did arrive in the morning. That he arrived is in favor of our friend's purpose, but that he went away is adverse to it. This opposition of the added assertion, in reference to the purpose in view, is indicated by the connective or conjunction BUT.

(2) AND and BUT agree, then, in so far, that they both indicate a connection between propositions; but they differ in this, that and connects propositions expressing consentaneous assertions concurring to the same purpose, but, on the contrary, connects propositions expressing assertions opposed in reference to their bearing on the point under discussion. (3) We might perhaps say more simply, BUT serves the purpose which AND serves; namely, to connect propositions, &c.; and, besides, serves a purpose which and cannot serve; namely, to indicate some contrariety in the propositions connected. We may consider AND as by way of pre-eminence the simple connective, and BUT as the adversative (sometimes the exceptive) connective. (4) We shall call the connection effected by but adversative (and sometimes exceptive) connection.

(5) The most marked case of adversative connection is that in which BUT is employed between an affirmative and a negative propo

§ 147. (1) Repeat the illustration of the distinction between the connection effected by AND and by BUT.

(2) State the distinction between the uses of BUT and AND. (8) State it more simply. (4) What name is given to the connection effected by BUT?

sition; thus, Your father will go to the exhibition to-morrow, BUT he will not take you with him. (6) That but is used in such cases is not attributable to the change from affirmative to negative, but to the fact that such change very generally arises from some change or variation in the train of thought. A negative proposition is not necessarily connected with an affirmative one by but, and but is very often employed to connect two affirmative, and, perhaps, sometimes two negative propositions. Examples: "Fear thou the Lord and the king; and meddle not with them that are given to change." "Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people."

(7) But is sometimes employed like and, though less frequently than and, in connecting members of propositions and complementary words, especially when such words represent a proposition. Examples: Not John, but James is wrong. "I shall not die, but live," &c. John has learnt all his lessons BUT one. "None of them is lost, BUT the son of perdition ' John has learnt all his lessons, but one he has not learnt; and, "None of them is lost, but the son of perdition" is lost. (8) BUT in such cases expresses an exception, and may generally be represented by the imperative EXCEPT. Thus, John has learnt all his lessons, except one.

NOTE. This is perhaps a use to which but was applied, before it came to be used merely as an adversative-the manner in which it is now most commonly employed. But, at least the but thus used, is supposed to have been originally an imperative or participle in the Anglo-Saxon language, signifying be out, except, save, or being out, excepting, saving. We regard the use of this word first mentioned above, viz., to indicate the addition of a proposition in a lesser or greater degree opposed to the previous current of thought, as a secondary use to be traced perhaps to the effect of insensible extension. The opposition expressed by but in the present use of the language, is in many cases so slight that and may be substituted for it without much change of sense. If, indeed, there is no opposition whatever, no variation of the train of thought, but cannot with propriety be used. When there is but a trifling variation of the thought we may use but to indicate such variation, or we may employ the simple copulative and, leaving the hearer or reader to detect and appreciate for himself the opposition between the propositions. If, on the contrary, we think the opposition worthy to be marked, we must do it by the employment of but.

(5) Mention the most marked case of adversative connection. (6) Repeat the remark about the connection between the change from affirmative to negative assertion, and the employment of adversative construction. Illustrate by examples.

(7) What is said of the use of BUT to connect members of propositions and complementary words? Illustrate by examples.

(8) What does BUT in such cases express? How may it be represented? Example?