all constructions alike, in which either BUT or THAN take after them an oblique case, which is not the modification of some other word expressed or implied in the discourse.

In a word then, we consider but as now employed in our language a conjunctive word, (a conjunctive proposition, if you please), not a preposition; though the old but without was rightly considered a preposition, that is, a word used in connection with a single word employed to modify a principal word, as distinguished from a word used to connect either two propositions, or two independent modifications of the same proposition or the same principal word. In the following passage from Elfric's Colloquium, we have beautiful examples of buton conjunction and butan preposition. Whether the distinction here observable in the spelling is intentional or not, we are not able to determine. "Ne canst thee huntian BUTON mid nettum?" Canst thou not (or knowest thou not how to) hunt EXCEPT with nets? = EXCEPT to hunt with nets. This usage exactly agrees with that of but exceptive in the language of the present day. Buton here connects either two propositions or two independent modifications of canst (or perhaps huntian), according as we choose to supply the construction. The answer to the above question is, “Gea, BUTAN nettum huntian ic maeg." Yes, I can hunt WITHOUT nets. Here butan is a preposition and with the dative nettum forms a noun and preposi tion modification of the infinitive huntian.

ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PREPOSITIONS AND CONJUNCTIONS.

§ 152. We may here submit a few remarks on a subject which has caused some controversy among grammarians; we mean the distinction which separates the two classes of words called prepositions and conjunctions.

The more ancient grammarians have generally represented prepositions and conjunctions as having the common property of serving as connectives, and as distinguished by the sole fact, that prepositions connect only words, and conjunctions connect only propositions. Many of the modern grammarians contend, on the contrary, that conjunctions sometimes connect words, as well as propositions. All admit that two or more subjects, two or more predicates, and two or more similar and independent complements may be united by a conjunction; but the first-mentioned class, including some recent grammarians, as well as the more ancient, contend that in all such cases the discourse may be resolved into as many propositions, as there are similar members of a proposition connected by conjunctions. Thus, John AND James are studious, may be resolved into the two independent propositions, John is studious, and James is studious. John reads AND writes, may be resolved into the propositions, John reads, and John writes. William studies Greek AND mathematics, into William studies Greek, and William studies mathematics.

The other class of grammarians contend that words are sometimes con

nected together by conjunctions, when no such resolution into separate propositions can be effected. They present in confirmation of this fact such examples as the following: "A man of wisdom and virtue is a perfect character." "Three and three make six." "The sides AB, BC, and ca form a triangle.” “John and Mary are a handsome couple." "John and Thomas carry a sack to the market." "Here (to use the language of Dr. Crombie) it is not implied that a man of wisdom is a perfect character; but a man of wisdom combined with virtue." It is not implied that John is a handsome couple, or that Mary is a handsome couple; that John carries a sack to the market, or that Thomas carries a sack to the market, but that they jointly carry the sack. Dr. Latham (First Outlines, p. 21), as quoted by Sir John Stoddart, says, "The answer to this lies in giving the proper limitation to the predicates. It is not true that John and Thomas each carry a sack; but it is true that they each of them carry. It is not true that each three makes six; but it is true that each three makes (i. e. contributes to the making). As far then as the essential parts of the predicate are concerned, there are two propositions; and it is upon the essential parts only that a grammarian rests his definition of a conjunction." We are astonished at the authoritative air with which Dr. Latham propounds this argument, and at the readiness with which Sir John Stoddart approves it, and avails himself of it. Suppose we propose as an example, John and Mary are a couple whom all their neighbors admire, how will Dr. Latham give us a "proper limitation," so as to exclude the word couple? And how will he apply his arbitrary method of limitation to the following proposition, Two and three are five? Will he say that are, which he represents, in common with other grammarians, as performing solely the function of copula, is the essential part of the predicate? Dr. Latham's argument appears to us wholly unsatisfactory, and Sir John's commentary does not seem to help it. If the definitions of prepositions and conjunctions given by the old grammarians were worth defending, (which we think they are not,) it seems to us the best mode of defence to maintain boldly, that a plurality of subjects constitutes a plurality of propositions, and that in the words, John and Mary are a happy couple, two propositions are found, because there are two distinct subjects.

In the whole of this controversy it has been taken for granted by one party, (and not explicitly denied by some of their opponents,) that there is little functional distinction between conjunctions and prepositions, save as regards the classes of expression which they come between. So far as concerns the conjunctions which connect co-ordinate propositions, and it is in reference to these exclusively that the controversy has originated, we think this a great mistake. The functions of this class of conjunctions are essentially distinct both from those of prepositions and from those of the conjunctions and conjunctive words which connect accessories with principal propositions. Both prepositions and this last-named class of conjunctives are employed as we have before intimated in forming modifications, the pre

positions with a noun, the conjunctives with a proposition. Sometimes the same word is employed for both these purposes. When employed in the first way the grammarians choose to call it a preposition, when in the latter way a conjunction. Between these two classes of words as defined by the grammarians, we admit freely, that the distinction, often the sole distinction is, that the one class performs a function between words, the other between propositions.

But the class of conjunctions which we are now considering, and the only class involved in the controversy, serve a purpose totally distinct from prepositions and the conjunctives of accessories. They are not employed to indicate the connection of modifications, but the connection of co-ordinate or independent expressions. Now, as modifying expressions sometimes consist of single words or phrases, sometimes of propositions; so, co-ordinate expressions, that is, expressions which we have occasion to connect in co-ordinate construction, may sometimes happen to be single words or phrases, as well as propositions. We have occasion in fact, as we have already seen, to connect independent propositions having no modifying influence on each other, to connect independent members of propositions, and to connect independent modifications. We mean, of course, independent of each other. As this coordinate connection is a very simple function, it is altogether unnecessary to employ different words to unite these several classes of co-ordinates. Another reason for employing the same words to connect these different classes of coordinates is, that co-ordinate members, and co-ordinate modifications can very generally be readily expanded into complete independent propositions. But cases occur, in which this is perhaps impossible, and attempts to effect it are fruitless, and lead, as we have seen, to absurdities. If the distinct functions of the two great classes of conjunctive words had been properly exhibited, the grammarians would likely have kept clear of this controversy. At least, so we think.

CHAPTER XI.

OF INTERJECTIONS AND EXCLAMATORY WORDS AND

PHRASES.

§ 153. INTERJECTIONS.-(1) In the introduction we distinguished two species of language or great classes of signs used as means of intercommunication between different minds, namely, the natural and the artificial; and we remarked, that (what are called) interjections belong to the first of these classes. (2) This class of words does not, as we may suppose, claim a large share of attention from the grammarian, whose proper province is to investigate the structure of artificial or articulate language. (3) Yet as interjections enter into the structure of discourse, and even, as we shall see, sometimes of compound propositions, we must not pass them over with entire neglect.

(4) The name interjection, meaning something thrown between, has been given to this class of signs, because they are thrown between the parts of discourse; not between the parts of speech or parts of propositions, as some have inconsiderately asserted. (5) As we have said already, they may be regarded as portions of natural language superadded to artificial language. (6) When naturally introduced, they spring spontaneously from the emotion of the speaker or writer, serving to give animation to discourse, or to express feelings more briefly and more impressively than can be done by artificial speech.

(7) One distinguishing circumstance to be remarked in reference to this class of signs is, that each of them expresses a particular feeling or emotion completely, and so is equivalent to a proposition.

153. (1) What is referred to as mentioned in the introduction? (2) Do interjections claim much attention from the grammarian? Reason? (8) Why may they not be altogether overlooked?

(4) What is the meaning of the name interjection? (5) How may these words be regarded? (6) From what do they spring, when naturally introduced, and what purposes do they serve?

(7) Mention an important circumstance in reference to this class of words.

(8) Since in this case propositions are expressed by single signs, there is no structure, so far as a solitary interjection is concerned; and, therefore, no work for the grammarian-no analysis of a simple proposition. (9) Thus 0, often spelled oh, is equivalent to I wish, desire, &c., in a weaker or stronger degree, according to the force given to the sound in utterance. Oh (Scotice and more expressively och) I feel pain, or anguish. Ah - I am filled with wonder, surprise, &c. Alas I feel grief, sorrow, pity, &c. Lo the imperatives look, behold, see, &c. These are the only interjections which find a place often in dignified discourse. (10) In writings of a dramatic character, exhibiting colloquial discourse, and in ordinary conversation many other words of this class enter.*

(11) We have one more (and an important) remark to make in reference to this class of words. Interjections being, as we have said, equivalent to propositions, like other propositions, some of them admit of modification by accessory propositions. (12) This fact is perhaps most remarkable in the case of O, or oh, the interjection expressive of wishing. This word frequently takes after it a substantive accessory as objective modification to the verb which is implied in it. (13) Examples: "Oh that I had wings like a dove.” I WISH that I had wings like a dove. "Oh that I were as in months past," &c. "Oh that I

* We subjoin the following classified list of the principal words generally recognised by grammarians as interjections, borrowed chiefly from Dr. Crombie, with some suppressions, additions and modifications:

2. Of grief: oh, ah, alas, Of wishing: 0, oh. O is 5. Aversion or contempt: 7. Desire of attention: lo,,

1. Interjections expressive of joy, as hey, io, &c. alack. 3. Of wonder: ah! hah! aha! hah! 4. often used with the vocative or case of address. tush, pshaw, fie, poh, pugh. 6. Laughter: ha ha. halloo, hem. 8. Languor: heigh ho. 9. Desire of silence: hush, hist, mum, 10. Deliberation: hum. 11. Exultation: huzza, hurrah, &c. 12. Pain: ok. It will be observed here that the same word, that is, a word represented by the same characters in writing, is used to express very different emotions; but then the word is very differently uttered, with a sound and intonation in each case accommodated to the emotion, so that in the spoken language these words may be regarded as in fact different signs, or distinct utterances. The above list might be greatly enlarged, without introducing into it, after the example of the grammarians, exclamatory words and phrases,

(8) What follows from this circumstance? (9) Give examples of the use of the principal interjections. (10) In what kind of writings do interjections chiefly occur?

(11) What other important circumstance is mentioned in reference to interjections! (12) In what case is the fact mentioned most remarkable? (13) Give examples.