Page images

norum aut vitium aut character est.

Plurimæ de

siderantur in Lucano, plurimæ in Seneca, multæ in aliis authoribus. Multas omitto; et, si meum genium sequerer, fere omnes. Qui rem intelligit et argumentum penetrat, percipit sibi ipsis cohærere sententias, nec egere particulis ut connectantur: quod, si interserantur voculæ connexivæ, scopæ dissolutæ illæ sunt ; nec additis et multiplicatis conjunctionibus cohærere poterunt. Hinc patet quid debuisset responderi Caligulæ, Senecæ calamum vilipendenti. Suetonius: Lenius comptiusque scribendi genus adeo contempsit, ut Senecam, tum maxime placentem, commissiones meras componere, et ARENAM SINE CALCE, diceret."—" Caligulæ hoc judicium est, inquit Lipsius in judicio de Seneca ; nempe illius qui cogitavit etiam de Homeri carminibus abolendis, itemque Virgilii et Titi Livii scriptis ex omnibus bibliothecis amovendis. Respondeo igitur meum Senecam non vulgo nec plebi scripsisse, nec omni viro docto, sed illi qui attente eum legeret. Et addo, ubi lector mente Senecam sequitur, sensum adsequi: nec inter sententias, suo se prementes et consolidantes pondere, conjunctionem majorem requiri.”

CARAMUEL, cxlii.

And I hope these authorities (for I will offer no argument to a writer of his cast) will satisfy the "true taste and judgment in writing" of Lord Monboddo; who with equal affectation and vanity has followed Mr. Harris in this particular: and who, though incapable

of writing a sentence of common English, (defuerunt enim illi et usus pro duce et ratio pro suasore,) sincerely deplores the decrease of learning in England*; whilst he really imagines that there is something captivating in his own style, and has gratefully informed us to whose assistance we owe the obligation.

* See Mr. Boswell's Tour to the Hebrides, p. 473.

[blocks in formation]

WELL, Sir, what you have hitherto said of the Conjunctions will deserve to be well considered. But we have not yet entirely done with them: for, you know, the Prepositions were originally, and for a long time, classed with the Conjunctions: and when first separated from them, were only distinguished by the name of Prepositive Conjunctions*.

* The philosophers of Hungary, Turkey and Georgia at least were in no danger of falling into this absurdity: for Dr. Jault, in his preface to (what is very improperly, though commonly, called) Menage's Dictionary, tells us-" Par le fréquent commerce que j'ai eu avec eux [les Hongrois] pendant plusieurs années, ayant tâché de pénétrer à fonds ce que ce pouvoit être que cet idiôme si différent de tous les autres d'Europe, je les ai convaincus qu'ils étoient Scythes d'origine, ou du moins que leur langue étoit une des branches de la Scythique; puisqu'à l'égard de l'inflexion elle avoit rapport à celle des Turcs, qui constam


Very true, Sir. And these Prepositive Conjunctions, once separated from the others, soon gave birth to another subdivision*; and Grammarians were not ashamed to have a class of Postpositive Prepositives.— "Dantur etiam Postpositiones (says Caramuel); quæ Præpositiones postpositiva solent dici, nulla vocabulorum repugnantia: vocantur enim Præpositiones, quia sensu saltem præponuntur; et Postpositiva, quia vocaliter postponi debent."


But as Mr. Harris still ranks them with Connectives, this, I think, will be the proper place for their investigation. And as the title of Prepositive or Preposition" only expresses their place and not their character; their Definition, he says, will distinguish them from the former Connectives." He therefore proceeds to give a compleat definition of them, viz.

-"A Preposition is a part of speech, devoid itself of

ment passoient pour Scythes, étant originaire du Turquestan, et de la Transoxiane; et qu'outre cela les PREPOSITIONS de ces deux langues, aussi bien que de la Georgienne, se mettoient toujours après leur regime, contre l'ordre de la nature et la signification de leur nom.”

Look at the English, i. e. The language we are talking OF: The language we deal IN: The object we look TO: The persons we work FOR: The explanation we depend UPON; &c.

* Buonmattei has still a further subdivision; and has made a separate part of speech of the Segnacasi.

signification; but so formed as to unite two words that are significant, and that refuse to coalesce or unite of themselves."-Now I am curious to know, whether you will agree with Mr. Harris in his definition of this part of Speech; or whether you are determined to differ from him on every point.


Till he agrees with himself, I think you should not disapprove of my differing from him; because for this at least I have his own respectable authority. Having defined a word to be a "Sound significant;" he now defines a Preposition to be a word "devoid of signification." And And a few pages after, he says, "Prepositions commonly transfuse something of their own meaning into the word with which they are compounded."

Now, if I agree with him that words are sounds. significant; how can I agree that there are sorts of words devoid of signification? And if I could suppose that Prepositions are devoid of signification; how could I afterwards allow that they transfuse something of their own meaning?


This is the same objection repeated, which you made. before to his definition of the first sort of Connectives. But is it not otherwise a compleat definition?

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »