The English Language Part 93

-- 601. The writer, however, of a paper on English preterites and genitives, in the Philological Museum (II. 261) objects to the current doctrine concerning such constructions as, _this is a picture of the king's_.

Instead of considering the sentence elliptic, and equivalent to _this is a picture of_ or (_from_) _the king's pictures_, he entertains the following view,--"I confess, however, that I feel some doubt whether this phrase is {480} indeed to be regarded as elliptical, that is, whether the phrase in room of which it is said to stand, was ever actually in use. It has sometimes struck me that this may be a relict of the old practice of using the genitive after nouns as well as before them, only with the insertion of the preposition _of_. One of the pa.s.sages quoted above from 'Arnold's Chronicle,' supplies an instance of a genitive so situated; and one cannot help thinking that it was the notion that _of_ governed the genitive, that led the old translators of Virgil to call his poem _The Booke of Eneidos_, as it is termed by Phaer, and Gawin Douglas, and in the translation printed by Caxton. Hence it may be that we put the genitive after the noun in such cases, in order to express those relations which are most appropriately expressed by the genitive preceding it. _A picture of the king's_ is something very different from _the king's picture_: and so many other relations are designated by _of_ with the objective noun, that if we wish to denote possession thereby, it leaves an ambiguity: so, for this purpose, when we want to subjoin the name of the possessor to the thing possest, we have recourse to the genitive, by prefixing which we are wont to express the same idea. At all events as, if we were askt whose castle Alnwick is, we should answer, _The Duke of Northumberland's_; so we should also say, _What a grand castle that is of the Duke of Northumberland's!_ without at all taking into account whether he had other castles besides: and our expression would be equally appropriate, whether he had or not."

Again, Mr. Guest quotes, amongst other pa.s.sages, the following:--

Suffice this hill _of ours_-- They fought two houres _of the nightes_--

Yet neither cla.s.s of examples is conclusive.

_Ours_ does not necessarily mean _of us_. It may also mean of _our hills_, _i. e._, of _the hills of our choice_. _Nightes_ may mean _of the night's hours_. In the expression, _what a grand castle_, &c., it is submitted to the reader that we _do_ take into our account other castles, which the Duke of Northumberland {481} may or may not have. _The Booke of Eneidos_ is a mistaken Latinism. As it does not seem to have been sufficiently considered that the real case governed by _of_ (as by _de_ in Latin) is the ablative, it is the opinion of the present writer that no instance has yet been produced of _of_ either governing, or having governed a genitive case.

-- 602. It is not so safe to say in the present English that no preposition governs a dative. The expression _give it him_ is good English; and it is also equivalent to the Latin _da ei_. But we may also say _give it to him_.

Now the German _zu_=_to_ governs a dative case, and in Anglo-Saxon, the preposition _to_, when prefixed to the infinitive mood, required the case that followed it to be a dative.

-- 603. When the infinitive mood is used as the subject of a proposition, _i.e._, as a nominative case, it is impossible to allow to the preposition _to_, by which it is preceded, any separate existence whatever,--_to rise_=_rising_; _to err_=_error_. Here the preposition must, for the purposes of syntax, be considered as incorporated with the noun, just like an inseparable inflection. As such it may be preceded by another preposition. The following example, although a Grecism, ill.u.s.trates this:--

Yet not to have been dipt in Lethe's lake, Could save the son of Thetis _from to die_.

-- 604. Akin to this, but not the same, is the so-called vulgarism, consisting of the use of the preposition _for_. _I am ready to go=I am ready for going_=the so-called vulgarism, _I am ready_ for _to go_. Now, this expression differs from the last in exhibiting, not only a _verbal_ acc.u.mulation of prepositions, but a _logical_ acc.u.mulation as well: inasmuch as _for_ and _to_ express like ideas.

-- 605. Composition converts prepositions into adverbs. Whether we say _upstanding_ or _standing-up_, we express the _manner_ in which an action takes place, and not the relation between two substantives. The so-called prepositional compounds in Greek ([Greek: anabaino, apothnesko], &c.) are all adverbial.

{482}

CHAPTER XXVI.

ON CONJUNCTIONS.

-- 606. A CONJUNCTION is a part of speech which connects _propositions_,--_the day is bright_, is one proposition. _The sun shines_, is another. _The day is bright_ because _the sun shines_ is a pair of propositions connected by the conjunction, _because_.

From this it follows, that whenever there is a conjunction, there are two subjects, two copulas, and two predicates: _i.e._, two propositions in all their parts.

But this may be expressed compendiously. _The sun shines_, _and the moon shines_, may be expressed by the _sun and moon shine_.

Nevertheless, however compendious may be the expression, there are always two propositions wherever there is one conjunction. A part of speech that merely combines two words is a preposition--_the sun along with the moon shines_.

It is highly important to remember that conjunctions connect propositions.

It is also highly important to remember that many double propositions may be expressed so compendiously as to look like one. When this takes place, and any question arises as to the construction, they must be exhibited in their fully expanded form; _i.e._, the second subject, the second predicate, and the second copula must be supplied. This can always be done from the first proposition,--_he likes you better than me_=_he likes you better than he likes me_. The compendious expression of the second proposition is the first point of note in the syntax of conjunctions.

-- 607. The second point in the syntax of conjunctions is the fact of their great convertibility. Most conjunctions have been developed out of some other part of speech. {483}

The conjunction of comparison, _than_, is derived from the adverb of time, _then_; which is derived from the accusative singular of the demonstrative p.r.o.noun.

The conjunction, _that_, is derived also from a demonstrative p.r.o.noun.

The conjunction, _therefore_, is a demonstrative p.r.o.noun + a preposition.

The conjunction, _because_, is a substantive governed by a preposition.

One and the same word, in one and the same sentence, may be a conjunction or preposition, as the case may be.

_All fled but John._--If this mean _all fled_ except _John_, the word _but_ is a preposition, the word _John_ is an accusative case, and the proposition is single. If, instead of _John_, we had a personal p.r.o.noun, we should say _all fled but_ him.

_All fled but John._--If this mean _all fled, but John did not fly_, the word _but_ is a conjunction, the word _John_ is a nominative case, and the propositions are two in number. If, instead of _John_, we had a personal p.r.o.noun, we should say, _all fled but_ he.

From the fact of the great convertibility of conjunctions it is often necessary to determine whether a word be a conjunction or not. _If it be a conjunction, it cannot govern a case. If it govern a case, it is no conjunction but a preposition._ A conjunction cannot govern a case, for the following reason,--the word that follows it _must_ be the subject of the second proposition, and, as such, a nominative case.

-- 608. The third point to determine in the syntax of conjunctions is the certainty or uncertainty in the mind of the speaker as to the facts expressed by the propositions which they serve to connect.

1. Each proposition may contain a certain, definite, absolute fact--_the day is clear_ because _the sun shines_. Here, there is neither doubt nor contingency of either the _day being clear_, or of the _sun shining_.

2. Of two propositions one may be the condition of the other--_the day will be clear_ if _the sun shine_. Here, although it is certain that _if the sun shine the day will be clear_, there is {484} no certainty of _the sun shining_. Of the two propositions one only embodies a certain fact, and that is certain only conditionally.

Now an action, wherein there enters any notion of uncertainty, or indefinitude, and is at the same time connected with another action, is expressed, not by the indicative mood, but by the subjunctive. _If the sun_ shine (not _shines_) _the day will be clear_.

Simple uncertainty will not const.i.tute a subjunctive construction,--_I am_, perhaps, _in the wrong_.

Neither will simple connection,--_I am wrong_ because _you are right_.

But, the two combined const.i.tute the construction in question,--_if I_ be _wrong_, _you are right_.

Now, a conjunction that connects two certain propositions may be said to govern an indicative mood.

And a conjunction that connects an uncertain proposition with a certain one, may be said to govern a subjunctive mood.

_The government of mood is the only form of government of which conjunctions are capable._

-- 609. Previous to the question of the government of conjunctions in the way of mood, it is necessary to notice certain points of agreement between them and the relative p.r.o.nouns; inasmuch as, in many cases, the relative p.r.o.noun exerts the same government, in the way of determining the mood of the verb, as the conjunction.

Between the relative p.r.o.nouns and conjunctions in general there is this point of connection,--both join propositions. Wherever there is a relative, there is a second proposition. So there is wherever there is a conjunction.

Between certain relative p.r.o.nouns and those particular conjunctions that govern a subjunctive mood there is also a point of connection. Both suggest an element of uncertainty or indefinitude. This the relative p.r.o.nouns do, through the logical elements common to them and to the interrogatives: these latter essentially suggesting the idea of doubt. Wherever the person, or thing, connected with an action, and expressed by a relative be indefinite, there is room for the use {485} a subjunctive mood. Thus--he that troubled you shall bear his judgment, _whosoever_ he _be_.

-- 610. By considering the nature of such words as _when_, their origin as relatives on the one hand, and their conjunctional character on the other hand, we are prepared for finding a relative element in words like _till_, _until_, _before_, _as long as_, &c. These can all be expanded into expressions like _until the time when_, _during the time when_, &c. Hence, in an expression like _seek out his wickedness till thou_ find (not _findest_) _none_, the principle of the construction is nearly the same as in _he that troubled you_, &c., or _vice versa_.[63]

-- 611. In most conditional expressions the subjunctive mood should follow the conjunction. All the following expressions are conditional.

1. _Except_ I _be_ by Silvia in the night, There is no music in the nightingale.

SHAKSPEARE.

2. Let us go and sacrifice to the Lord our G.o.d, _lest_ he _fall_ upon us with pestilence.--_Old Testament._

3.---- Revenge back on itself recoils.

Let it. I reck not, _so_ it _light_ well aimed.