CHAPTER IX.OF CONJUNCTIONS.
A conjunction has been defined to be “that part of speech which connects words and sentences together.”
Mr. Ruddiman, and several other grammarians, have asserted, that conjunctions never connect words, but sentences. This is evidently a mistake; for if I say, “a man of wisdom and virtue is a perfect character,” it implies not “that a man of wisdom is a perfect character, and a man of virtue a perfect character,” but “a man who combines wisdom and virtue.” The farther discussion of this question, however, I shall at present postpone, as it will form a subject of future inquiry.
Conjunctions have been distributed, according to their significations, into different classes:
This distribution of the conjunctions I have given, in conformity to general usage, that the reader may be acquainted with the common terms by which conjunctions have been denominated, if these terms should occur to him in the course of reading. In respect to the real import, and genuine character of these words, I decidedly adopt the theory of Mr. Tooke, which considers conjunctions as no distinct species of words, but as belonging to the class of attributives, or as abbreviations for two or more significant words.
Agreeably to his theory,andis an abbreviation foranad,the imperative ofananad, “to add,” or “to accumulate;” as, “two and two make four;” that is, “two, add two, make four.”Eitheris evidently an adjective expressive of “one of two;” thus, “it is either day or night,” that is, “one of the two, day or night.” It is derived from the Saxonægther, equivalent touterque, “each.”[114]
Oris a contraction forother, a Saxon and English adjective equivalent toaliusoralter, and denotes diversity, either of name or of subject. Henceoris sometimes a perfect disjunctive, as when it expresses contrariety or opposition of things; and sometimes a subdisjunctive, when it denotes simply a diversity in name. Thus, when we say, “It is either even or odd,”oris a perfect disjunctive, the two attributives being directly contrary, and admitting no medium. If I say, “Paris or Alexander” (these being names of the same individual); or if I say, “Gravity or weight,” “Logic, or the art of reasoning;”orin these examples is a subdisjunctive or an explicative, as it serves to define the meaning of the preceding term, or as it expresses the equivalence of two terms. The Latins express the former byaut,vel, and the latter byseuorsive. In the following sentence both conjunctions are exemplified: “Give meeitherthe blackorthe white;”i.e.“Give me one of the two—the black—other, the white.”
To these are opposedneither,nor, as, “Give meneitherpovertynorriches;”i.e.“Give me not one of the two, poverty—nor,i.e.not the other, riches.”
According to Mr. Tooke, the conjunctionifis the imperative of the Anglo-Saxon and Gothic verbgifan, “to give.” Among others, he quotes the following example. “How will the weather dispose of you to-morrow? If fair, it will send me abroad; if foul, it will keep me at home”—i.e.“Give,” or “grant it to be fair;” “give,” or “grant it to be foul.”
Thoughis the same asthaf, an imperative fromthafan, to allow, and is in some parts of the country pronouncedthof; as, “Though he should speak truth, I would not believe him;”i.e.“allow or grant, what? he should speak truth,” or “allow his speaking truth, I would not believe him.”
But, frombeutan, the imperative ofbeon utan, tobe out, is the same aswithoutorunless, there being no difference between these in respect to meaning. Grammarians, however, in conformity to the distinction betweennisiandsine, have calledbuta conjunction, andwithouta preposition.But, therefore, being a word signifying exception or exclusion, I have not termed it an “adversative,” as most grammarians have, but an “exceptive.” In this sense it is synonymous withpræter,præterquam, ornisi; thus, “I saw nobody but John,”i.e.“unless,” or “except John.”
But, frombot, the imperative ofbotan, tobootorsuperadd, has a very different meaning. This word was originally writtenbot, and was thus distinguished from but[115]. They are now written alike, which tends to create confusion. The meaning of this word is, “add,” or, “moreover.” This interpretation is confirmed by the probable derivation and meaning of synonymous words in other languages. Thus, the Frenchmais(but) is frommajus, ormagis, “more,” or “in addition;” the Italianma, the Spanishmas, and the Dutchmaar, are from the same etymon, signifying “more.” And it is not improbable, thatadsit(be it present, or be it added) by contraction becameastandat: thus,adsit,adst,ast,at. In this sensebutis synonymous withat,autem,cæterum, “moreover,” or “in addition.”
It is justly observed by Mr. Tooke, thatbotorbutallays or mitigates a good or bad precedent, by the addition of something; forbotanmeans “to superadd,” “to supply,” “to atone for,” “to compensate,” “to add something more,” “to make amends,” or “make up deficiency.” Thus,
“Once did I lay an ambush for your life,A trespass, that doth vex my grieved soul:But (bot), ere I last received the sacrament,I did confess...”Richard II.
“Once did I lay an ambush for your life,A trespass, that doth vex my grieved soul:But (bot), ere I last received the sacrament,I did confess...”Richard II.
“Once did I lay an ambush for your life,
A trespass, that doth vex my grieved soul:
But (bot), ere I last received the sacrament,
I did confess...”
Richard II.
“Add (this) ere I last received.”
Whenbutmeansbe out, orwithout, it should, says Mr. Tooke, be preceded by a negative; thus, instead of saying, “I saw but John,” which means, “I saw John be out,” we should say, “I saw none but John,”i.e.“none, John be out,” or “had John been out,” or, “John being excluded.” This, observes the ingenious author, is one of the most faulty ellipses in our language, and could never have obtained, but through the utter ignorance of the meaning of the wordbut(bot).
Yet, from the imperative ofgetan, “to get.”
Still, fromstellorsteall, the imperative ofstellan,ponere, “to suppose.”
Horne Tooke observing that these words, likeifandan[116], are synonymous, accounts for their equivalence by supposing them to be derived from verbs of the same import. His mode of derivation, however, appears at first hearing to be incorrect: the meaning of the conjunctions have little or no affinity to that of the verbs. Mr. Tooke himself does not seem perfectly satisfied with its truth. Both these conjunctions are synonymous with “notwithstanding,” “nevertheless;” terms, the obvious meaning of which does not accord with verbs denoting “to get,” or “to suppose.” I am inclined, however, to think that Tooke’s conjecture is founded in truth. If I say, “he was learned, yet modest,” it may be expressed, “he was learned, notwithstanding this, or this being granted, even thus, orbe it so(licet ita esset) he was modest;” where the general incompatibility between learning and modesty is conceived, not expressed, the expression denoting merely the combination of the qualities in the individual mentioned.Notwithstandingindirectly marks the repugnance, by signifying that the one quality did not prevent the co-existence of the other;yetorstillsupposes the incompatibility to be sufficientlyknown. This derivation is rendered the more probable, as the wordthough(thof,grant) may be substituted to express the same idea, as “though(grant) he was learned, he was modest;” which is equivalent to “he was learned, yet (this granted) he was modest.” Hence many repeat the concessive term, and say, “thoughhe was learned,yethe was modest.”
Unless.Mr. Horne Tooke is of opinion that this exceptive conjunction is properlyonles, the imperative of the verbonlesan, to dismiss; thus, “you cannot be savedunlessyou believe;”i.e.“dismiss your believing, and you cannot be saved,” or, “you cannot be saved, your believing being dismissed.”
Lestis contracted forlesed, the participle of the same verb,onlesanorlesan, signifying “dismissed;” as, “Young men should take care to avoid bad company,lesttheir morals be corrupted, and their reputation ruined;” that is, “Young men should take care to avoid bad company,lest(this being dismissed, or omitted) their morals be corrupted,” &c.
Thatis evidently in all cases an adjective, or, as some consider it, a demonstrative pronoun; as, “They saythatthe king is arrived;” “They say that (thing) the king is arrived.”
Whetheris an adjective, denoting “which of two;” thus, “Whether he live or die;” that is, “Which of the two things, he live or die.”
Asis the same withes, a German article, meaningit,that, orwhich.
Soissaorso, a Gothic article of the same import.
Than, which Mr. Tooke does not seem to have noticed, is supposed to be a compound of the definitivetha, and the additive termination,en, thus,tha en, thænne, then, and now spelledthan[117].
These few examples will serve to explain Mr. Tooke’s theory on this subject; and I am persuaded, that the further we investigate the etymology and real import of conjunctions, the more probable will it appear that they are all nouns or attributives, some belonging to kindred languages, and others compounds or abbreviations in our own. I am persuaded, also, that from a general review of this subject, it must be evident that adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions, form no distinct species of words, and that they are all reducible to the class either of nouns or attributives, if their original character and real import be considered. But, as many of them are derived from obsolete words in our own language, or from words in kindred languages, the radical meanings of which are, therefore, either obscure, or generally unknown—and as the syntactical use of several of them has undergone a change—it can be no impropriety, nay, it is even convenient, to regard them not in their original character, but their present use. When the radical word still remains, the case is different. Thusexceptis by some considered as a preposition; but as the verbto exceptis still in use,exceptmay, and indeed should, be considered as the imperative of the verb[118]. But in parsing, to say that the wordunlessisthe imperative of the verbonlesan, “to dismiss,” that verb belonging to a different language, would serve only to perplex and to confound, were it even true that the etymology is correct. For this reason, though I perfectly concur with Mr. Tooke as to the proper and original character of these words, I have distributed them under the customary head of prepositions, adverbs, and conjunctions.