Between, “be twain,” “be two,” or “be separated.”[113]
Under, i.e. on neder.
Beyond, imperative be, and the participle past goned of the verb gan, “to go:” as, “beyond the place,” i.e. “be passed the place.”
Among, from gemong, the preterperfect of the verb mengan, to mix, used as a participle, and signifying “mixed.”
Many other examples might be produced from Tooke’s ingenious illustration of his theory; but those which I have now offered suffice to prove, that our prepositions, so far from being words insignificant, belong to the class of nouns or verbs either single or compounded.
Besides, if prepositions denote relations, as Harris admits, it is surely absurd to suppose, that they have no meaning; for the relation, whether of propinquity, contiguity, approach, or regress, &c., may be expressed, and apprehended by the mind, though the objects between which the relation subsists be not specified. If I hear the word with, I naturally conceive the idea of conjunction; the reverse takes place when I hear without. If it be said a soldier with, I have the idea of a soldier associated with something else, which association is denoted by with. What is conjoined to him I know not, till the object be specified, as, “a soldier with a musquet;” but the mere association was before sufficiently expressed, and clearly apprehended. Again, if a person say, “he threw a glass under,” I have instantly an idea of a glass, and of inferiority of place, conceiving a glass removed into a situation lower than something else. To ascertain that something, I ask, under what? and the answer may be, under the table. Now, if under had no meaning, this question would be insignificant, or rather impossible.
From the examples given, I trust the young reader sufficiently understands the difference between the doctrine of Harris on this subject, and that of Horne Tooke; nay, I think, he must perceive, that the former is merely a theory, while the latter is supported by reason and fact. The syntax of our prepositions will be afterwards explained. I shall only observe at present, that the words which are in English considered as prepositions, and joined to the objective case are these:
| Above | Beneath | Since | |||
| About | Below | Through | } | ||
| After | Beside | Throughout | |||
| Against | By | Till | } | ||
| Among | } | Down | Until | ||
| Amongst | For | To | } | ||
| Amid | } | From | Unto | ||
| Amidst | In | Toward | } | ||
| Around | } | Into | Towards | ||
| Round | Near | } | Under | } | |
| At | Nigh | Underneath | |||
| Between | } | Of | Up | ||
| Betwixt | Off | With | |||
| Beyond | Over | Within | |||
| Before | On | } | Without | ||
| Behind | Upon |
Some of these, though they are commonly joined to an objective case, and may therefore be deemed prepositions, are, notwithstanding, of an equivocal character, resembling the Latin adverbs procul and prope, which govern a case by the ellipsis of a preposition. Thus we say, “near the house” and “near to the house,” “nigh the park,” and “nigh to the park,” “off the table,” and “off from the table.”