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:

_Copulative_, And, also, but, (bot). _Disjunctive_, Either, or. _Concessive_, Though, although, albeit, yet. _Adversative_, But, however. _Exclusive_, Neither, nor. _Causal_, For, that, because, since. _Illative_, Therefore, wherefore, then. _Conditional_, If. _Exceptive_, Unless.

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, _and_ is an abbreviation for _anad_, the imperative of _ananad_, “to add,” or “to accumulate;” as, “two and two make four;” that is, “two, add two, make four.” _Either_ is 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 Saxon _ægther_, equivalent to _uterque_, “each.”[114]

_Or_ is a contraction for _other_, a Saxon and English adjective equivalent to _alius_ or _alter_, and denotes diversity, either of name or of subject. Hence _or_ is 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,” _or_ is 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;” _or_ in 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 by _aut_, _vel_, and the latter by _seu_ or _sive_. In the following sentence both conjunctions are exemplified: “Give me _either_ the black _or_ the white;” _i.e._ “Give me one of the two--the black--other, the white.”

To these are opposed _neither_, _nor_, as, “Give me _neither_ poverty _nor_ riches;” _i.e._ “Give me not one of the two, poverty--nor, _i.e._ not the other, riches.”

According to Mr. Tooke, the conjunction _if_ is the imperative of the Anglo-Saxon and Gothic verb _gifan_, “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.”

_Though_ is the same as _thaf_, an imperative from _thafan_, to allow, and is in some parts of the country pronounced _thof_; 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_, from _beutan_, the imperative of _beon utan_, to _be out_, is the same as _without_ or _unless_, there being no difference between these in respect to meaning. Grammarians, however, in conformity to the distinction between _nisi_ and _sine_, have called _but_ a conjunction, and _without_ a 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 with _præter_, _præterquam_, or _nisi_; thus, “I saw nobody but John,” _i.e._ “unless,” or “except John.”

_But_, from _bot_, the imperative of _botan_, to _boot_ or _superadd_, has a very different meaning. This word was originally written _bot_, 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 French _mais_ (but) is from _majus_, or _magis_, “more,” or “in addition;” the Italian _ma_, the Spanish _mas_, and the Dutch _maar_, are from the same etymon, signifying “more.” And it is not improbable, that _adsit_ (be it present, or be it added) by contraction became _ast_ and _at_: thus, _adsit_, _adst_, _ast_, _at_. In this sense _but_ is synonymous with _at_, _autem_, _cæterum_, “moreover,” or “in addition.”

It is justly observed by Mr. Tooke, that _bot_ or _but_ allays or mitigates a good or bad precedent, by the addition of something; for _botan_ means “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._

“Add (this) ere I last received.”

When _but_ means _be out_, or _without_, 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 word _but_ (bot).

_Yet_, from the imperative of _getan_, “to get.”

_Still_, from _stell_ or _steall_, the imperative of _stellan_, _ponere_, “to suppose.”

Horne Tooke observing that these words, like _if_ and _an_[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, or _be 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. _Notwithstanding_ indirectly marks the repugnance, by signifying that the one quality did not prevent the co-existence of the other; _yet_ or _still_ supposes the incompatibility to be sufficiently known. This derivation is rendered the more probable, as the word _though_ (_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, “_though_ he was learned, _yet_ he was modest.”

_Unless._ Mr. Horne Tooke is of opinion that this exceptive conjunction is properly _onles_, the imperative of the verb _onlesan_, to dismiss; thus, “you cannot be saved _unless_ you believe;” _i.e._ “dismiss your believing, and you cannot be saved,” or, “you cannot be saved, your believing being dismissed.”

_Lest_ is contracted for _lesed_, the participle of the same verb, _onlesan_ or _lesan_, signifying “dismissed;” as, “Young men should take care to avoid bad company, _lest_ their 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.

_That_ is evidently in all cases an adjective, or, as some consider it, a demonstrative pronoun; as, “They say _that_ the king is arrived;” “They say that (thing) the king is arrived.”

_Whether_ is an adjective, denoting “which of two;” thus, “Whether he live or die;” that is, “Which of the two things, he live or die.”

_As_ is the same with _es_, a German article, meaning _it_, _that_, or _which_.

_So_ is _sa_ or _so_, 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 definitive _tha_, and the additive termination, _en_, thus, _tha en, thænne, then_, and now spelled _than_[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. Thus _except_ is by some considered as a preposition; but as the verb _to except_ is still in use, _except_ may, and indeed should, be considered as the imperative of the verb[118]. But in parsing, to say that the word _unless_ is the imperative of the verb _onlesan_, “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.