QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED IN PARSING.
From what words is the term conjunction derived?—What is a sentence?—What is a simple sentence?—What is a compound sentence?—Give examples.—In what respect do conjunctions and prepositions agree in their nature?—How many sorts of conjunctions are there?—Repeat the lists of conjunctions.—Repeat some conjunctions with their corresponding conjunctions.—Do relative pronouns ever connect sentences?—Repeat the order of parsing a conjunction.—Do you apply any Rule in parsing a conjunction?—What Rule should be applied in parsing a noun or pronoun connected with another?—What Rule in parsing a verb agreeing with two or more nouns singular, connected by a copulative conjunction?—What Rule when the nouns are connected by a disjunctive?—In parsing a verb connected to another by a conjunction, what Rule do you apply?—Is a conjunction ever used as other parts of speech?—Give examples.—What is said of the words for, since, and before?—What is said of the transposition of sentences?
PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES.
On scientific principles, our connectives, commonly denominated prepositions and conjunctions, are but one part of speech, the distinction between them being merely technical. Some conjunctions unite only words, and some prepositions connect sentences. They are derived from nouns and verbs; and the time has been, when, perhaps, in our language, they did not perform the office of connectives.
"I wish you to believe, that I would not wilfully hurt a fly." Here, in the opinion of H. Tooke, our modern conjunction that, is merely a demonstrative adjective, in a disguised form; and he attempts to prove it by the following resolution: "I would not wilfully hurt a fly. I wish you to believe that [assertion.">[ Now, if we admit, that that is an adjective in the latter construction, it does not necessarily follow, that it is the same part of speech, nor that its associated meaning is precisely the same, in the former construction. Instead of expressing our ideas in two detached sentences, by the former phraseology we have a quicker and closer transition of thought, and both the mode of employing that, and its inferential meaning, are changed. Moreover, if we examine the meaning of each of these constructions, taken as a whole, we shall find, that they do not both convey the same ideas. By the latter, I assert, positively, that "I would not wilfully hurt a fly:" whereas, by the former, I merely wish you to believe that "I would not wilfully hurt a fly;" but I do not affirm, that as a fact.
That being the past part, of thean, to get, take, assume, by rendering it as a participle, instead of an adjective, we should come nearer to its primitive character. Thus, "I would not wilfully hurt a fly. I wish you to believe the assumed [fact or statement;] or, the fact assumed or taken."
If, (formerly written gif, give, gin,) as previously stated, is the imperative of the Anglo-Saxon verb gifan, to give. In imitation of Horne Tooke, some of our modern philosophical writers are inclined to teach pupils to render it as a verb. Thus, "I will go, if he will accompany me:"—"He will accompany me. Grant—give that [fact] I will go." For the purpose of ascertaining the primitive meaning of this word, I have no objection to such a resolution; but, by it, do we get the exact meaning and force of if as it is applied in our modern, refined state of the language? I trow not. But, admitting we do, does this prove that such a mode of resolving sentences can be advantageously adopted by learners in common schools? I presume it can not be denied, that instead of teaching the learner to express himself correctly in modern English, such a resolution is merely making him familiar with an ancient and barbarous construction which modern refinement has rejected. Our forefathers, I admit, who were governed by those laws of necessity which compel all nations in the early and rude state of their language, to express themselves in short, detached sentences, employed if as a verb when they used the following circumlocution: "My son will reform. Give that fact. I will forgive him." But in the present, improved state of our language, by using if as a conjunction, (for I maintain that it is one,) we express the same thought more briefly; and our modern mode of expression has, too, a decisive advantage over the ancient, not only in point of elegance, but also in perspicuity and force. In Scotland and the north of England, some people still make use of gin, a contraction of given: thus, "I will pardon my son, gin he reform." But who will contend, that they speak pure English?
But perhaps the advocates of what they call a philosophical development of language, will say, that by their resolution of sentences, they merely supply an ellipsis. If, by an ellipsis, they mean such a one as is necessary, to the grammatical construction, I cannot accede to their assumption. In teaching grammar, as well as in other things, we ought to avoid extremes:—we ought neither to pass superficially over an ellipsis necessary to the sense of a phrase, nor to put modern English to the blush, by adopting a mode of resolving sentences that would entirely change the character of our language, and carry the learner back to the Vandalic age.
But comes from the Saxon verb, beon-utan, to be-out. "All were well but (be-out, leave-out) the stranger." "Man is but a reed, floating on the current of time." Resolution: "Man is a reed, floating on the current of time; but (be-out this fact) he is not a stable being."