tive by a preposition, and thus in a degree dependent upon it. Hence then we infer the following rule, That when the sentence cannot be so modelled, that the relative may be placed in close connexion with the antecedent, it should be made to refer to the leading noun of the sentence.

"The orator deserves no credit for those benefits, however important, which resuit from the subject and occasion, which are often the true cause of that effect, which is generally supposed to be produced by the man himself. ”

"The orator deserves no credit for those benefits, howerer important, which result from the subject and occasion. These are often the true cause of that effect, which is generally supposed to be produced by the man himself."

In the first form of this example, the relative is used three different times, and in each instance with a different antecedent. This causes a want of perspicuity in the sentence. The pronoun is a substitute for the noun, and the effect of using the relative with different antecedents in the same sentence, is much the same, as if the same word were used in different senses. The difficulty is removed in the second form of the example by a division of the sentence. Hence then we derive the direction, Avoid using the same relative twice or oftener in the same sentence with different antecedents.

The preceding rules are designed to assist in so constructing the sentence, that no doubt may exist as to the right antecedent of the relative. But cases will oceur, when it is impossible to prevent all ambiguity in the use of the relative pronoun. In such cases the noun itself may be repeated, or a division be made of the sentence, or in some other way the use of the pronoun may be avoided. Sometimes ambiguity in the use of the

relative, may arise from a different source, as is seen in the following example.

"I know that all words which are signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake and cavil."

"I know that all those words which are signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake and cavil."

In the first form of this example, though the relative is rightly placed in reference to the antecdent, still the true meaning of the author is not conveyed. He did not mean to say, "that all words are signs of complex ideas," which is expressed by the words used; but his design is, to affirm something of those words which are signs of complex ideas. Here then is ambiguity arising from a cause which has not been mentioned. To state this cause, it is necessary to mention a distinction between clauses introduced by the relative as explicative of the meaning of the antecedent, and those introduced as determinative of its meaning. "Man who is born of a woman, is of few days and full of trouble." "The man that endureth to the end, shall be saved." In the former of these sentences, the clause introduced by the relative is explicative. It merely points out some property of the antecedent, but does not affect its meaning as used in the given instance. It might be said of man that he is of few days and full of trouble, though he were not born of a woman. In the other example, the relative introduces a determinative clause, which affects the meaning of the antecedent. It is not said that all men shall be saved, but only "he that endureth to the end;" and the clause introduced by the relative cannot be removed without changing entirely the meaning of the senterce. Now the clause introduced by the relative in the example at the head of this paragraph, is designed to be determinative in its effect on the antecedent. It has this

force in the corrected form of the example, which is given to it by the insertion of the demonstrative pronoun those before words. The same effect would have been produced by the insertion of the definite article. Hence then we infer the, rule, That whenever a clause which is designed to be determinative in its effects on the antecedent, is introduced by the relative, the antecedent should be preceded by the demonstrative pronoun, or the definite article.

3. Of conjunctions, and other particles.

Every one acquainted with grammar, knows that adverbs are not essential parts of language, but that they might be dismissed, and the same meaning expressed by circumlocutions. It has been shewn by a late eminent philologist, that conjunctions are of the same nature. They are obsolete forms of verbs, and in the use of them an ellipsis is implied, in supplying which, where they serve the purpose of connectives, a pronon is used. This is shewn in the following example; "Faith cannot be perfect unless there be good works.” Here, unless is to be considered as the imperative of the obsolete verb onlessan, the signification of which is to dismiss. In supplying the implied ellipsis, the sentence will read ; "Faith cannot be perfect to this dismiss there be good works." In this then, as in the preceding examples, the real connective is a pronoun.

In agreement with this account of conjunctions, it is. found, that besides implying connexion, they express the manner of connexion, or the relation of one clause or member to another, or of one sentence to another. In doing this, they retain their original meaning, and hence the different classes into which they are divided; as the copulative, disjunctive, causal, illative, &c. all of which names are intended to shew the nature of the

relation expressed by the conjunctions included under them.

Skill, in the use of conjunctions, both as connectives and as shewing the relation between parts connected, is to be acquired from practice in writing, and from familiarity with good writers. It is also most frequently found united with clearness of thought, and accurate habits of reasoning. Hence no directions are here given to guide the writer in their use, but simply a few remarks offered, the reason and propriety of which, sound sense and good taste must perceive.

Such are

1. Long conjunctions are to be avoided. the words nevertheless, notwithstanding, furthermore, for as much as. The improvement of our language has caused most of these conjunctions to give place to others, which are shorter; and as such words are but secondary parts of sentences, it is desirable that they should not occupy more room and become more conspicuous than is absolutely necessary.

2. The frequent recurrence of the same conjunction is to be avoided; especially if that conjunction consist of more than one syllable. The reason of this direction, as of the preceding, is to prevent conjunctions from appearing too prominent.

3. The accumulating of several conjunctions in the same clause is to be avoided, unless their coalition be absolutely necessary. To aid in forming a judgment of what propriety and the idiom of the language allow in such cases, the following remarks are made;

Two conjunctions may follow each other, when one of them serves to connect the sentence with what precedes, and the other to connect one clause in the sentence with another clause. "I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I

will come again and receive you to myself." And is the connective of the sentences, and if of the clauses.

Conjunctions of the same class may be connected together, but such coalitions are often unnecessary and should be avoided. Examples of this kind are but however, and further, yet nevertheless, &c. In each of these instances, one of the conjunctions used is unnecessary.

Conjunctions of different classes are often found united, and sometimes necessarily, but at others, when more care in the construction of the sentence would have rendered their union unnecessary. Of the propriety of such coalitions a knowledge of the usage of the best writers, and of the original meaning of the conjunction, will enable us to judge.

Conjunctions are often to be left to be supplied by the

reader.

To use a conjunction wherever the sense would allow of one, would render a style heavy, and conduce but little to its perspicuity. Hence,as in the former instance, the usage of good writers must decide. On the one hand, we are to guard against the omission of connectives to that degree, which might render the style defective and obscure. On the other, we are to avoid the too frequent use of them, which would render our manner of writing awkward and diffuse.

. In connexion with these remarks on connectives, it may be stated, that the abreviations i. e.—e. g. and viz. are in dignified composition to be avoided.

Examples, in the correction of which the rules and principles stated in the preceding chapter are illustrated, are found among the exercises. (Ex. 8.)

13*