Part 87 (1/2)
A Preposition is a word used to express sohts to each other, and is generally placed before a noun or a pronoun: as, ”The paper lies _before_ me _on_ the desk”
OBSERVATIONS
OBS 1--The relations of things to things in nature, or of words to words in discourse, are infinite in number, if not also in variety But just classification may make even infinites the subjects of sure science Every _relation_ of course implies , considered merely in itself, is taken independently, abstractly, irrelatively, as if it had no relation or dependence In all correct language, the grammatical relation of the _words_ corresponds exactly to the relation of the _things_ or _ideas_ expressed; for the relation of words, is their dependence, or connexion, _according to the sense_ This relation is oftentimes immediate, as of one word to an other, without the intervention of a preposition; but it is seldom, if ever, reciprocally equal; because dependence implies subordination; and mere adjunction is a sort of inferiority
OBS 2--To a preposition, the _prior_ or _antecedent_ term may be a noun, an adjective, a pronoun, a verb, a participle, or an adverb; and the _subsequent_ or _governed_ term may be a noun, a pronoun, a pronominal adjective, an infinitive verb, or a participle In soh, at once, till now, for ever, by how much, until then, from thence, from above_, we find adjectives used elliptically, and adverbs substantively, after the preposition But, in phrases of an adverbial character, what is elsewhere a preposition often becomes an adverb Now, if prepositions are concerned in expressing the various relations of so many of the different parts of speech, multiplied, as these relations must be, by that endless variety of coiven to the terms; and if the sense of the writer or speaker is necessarily mistaken, as often as any of these relations are misunderstood, or their terht explanation, and a right use, of this part of speech?
OBS 3--The gra all others, in ”acuteness of investigation, perspicuity of explication, and elegance ofall but Aristotle, in the beauty and perfectness of his philological analysis; co manner: ”Connectives are the subject of what follohich, _according_ as they connect _either Sentences or Words_, are called by the different _Names_ of _Conjunctions_ OR _Prepositions_ Of these Names, that of the Preposition is taken from a _mere accident_, as _it_ commonly stands in connection before _the Part, which it connects_ The name of the Conjunction, as is evident, has reference to its essential character Of these te shall consider the Conjunction _first_, because it connects, _not Words_, but Sentences”--_Harris's Hermes_, p 237
OBS 4--In point of order, it is not ah this is not the method of Lowth, or of Murray But, to any one who is well acquainted with these two parts of speech, the foregoing passage cannot but appear, in three sentences out of the four, both defective in style and erroneous in doctrine It is true, that conjunctions generally connect sentences, and that prepositions as generally express relations between particular words: but it is true also, that conjunctions _often_ connect words only; and that prepositions, by governing antecedents, relatives, or even personal pronouns, may serve to subjoin sentences to sentences, as well as to determine the relation and construction of the particular words which they govern Example: ”The path seems now plain and even, _but_ there are asperities and pitfalls, _over which_ Religion only can conduct you”--_Dr Johnson_ Here are three simple sentences, which are made members of one compound sentence, by means of _but_ and _over which_; while two of these members, clauses, or subdivisions, contain particular words connected by _and_
OBS 5--In one respect, the preposition is the _sirammar, it has neither classes nor overns an object after it, is called a preposition, _because it does so_; and in ety, to name the preposition as such, and define the name, is, perhaps, all that is necessary But in syntactical parsing, in which we are to oht to explain what terive a rule adapted to this office of the particle It is a palpable defect in nearly all our gramovern the objective case,” is a rule for _the objective case_, and not for the syntax of _prepositions_ ”Prepositions show the relations of words, and of the things or thoughts expressed by them,” is the principle for the latter; a principle which we cannot neglect, without a shameful lameness in our interpretation;--that is, e pretend to parse syntactically
OBS 6--Prepositions and their objects very often precede the words on which they depend, and soreat distance Of this we have an exa of Milton's Paradise Lost; where ”_Of_,” the first word, depends upon ”_Sing_,” in the sixth line below; for theof man's first disobedience_,”
&c To find the tere; a very useful exercise, provided the words have atext has for centuries afforded ground of dispute, because it is doubtful in the original, as well as in many of the versions, whether the preposition _in_ (i e, ”_in the regeneration_”) refers back to _have followed_, or forward to the last verb _shall sit_: ”Verily I say unto you that ye who have followed eneration, when the Son of lory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel”--_Matt_, xix, 28 The second _in_ is : the Greek word is [Greek: epi], _on_ or _upon_; i e, ”_upon_ the throne of his glory”
OBS 7--The prepositions have, from their own nature, or from custom, such an _adaptation_ to particular terms and relations, that they can seldom be used one for an other without manifest impropriety Example of error: ”Proper seasons should be allotted _for_ retirement”--_Murray's Key_, p
173 We do not say ”_allotted for_,” but ”_allotted to_:” hence _for_ is either wrong in itself or ent reader He sees the terms mismatched, the intended connection doubtful, the sense obscured, and wishes the author could have valued his own ible;--that is, (to speak technically,) enough to have made it a certain clew to his syntax We can neither parse nor correct e do not understand Did the writer mean, ”Proper seasons should be _allotted to_ retirement?”--or, ”Proper _seasons for_ retirement should be allotted?”--or, ”Seasons _proper for_ retirement should be alloted?” [sic--KTH] Every expression is incorrigibly bad, theof which cannot be known Expression? Nay, expression it is not, but only a mock utterance or an abortive attempt at expression
OBS 8--Harris observes, in substance, though in other words, that alinally formed to denote relations of place; that this class of relations is pri that which natural bodies maintain at all times one to an other; that in the continuity of place these bodies form the universe, or visible whole; that we have souous_ relation of bodies, and others for the _detached_ relation; and that both have, by _degrees_, been extended from local relations, to the relations of subjects incorporeal He appears also to assu,--”Caius _walketh with_ a staff; ”--”The statue _stood upon_ a pedestal;”--”The river _ran over_ a sand;”--”He _is going_ to Turkey;”--”The sun _is risen_ above the hills;”--”These figs _came from_ Turkey;”--the antecedent term of the relation is not the verb, but the noun or pronoun before it See _Hermes_, pp 266 and 267 Now the true antecedent is, unquestionably, that hich, in the order of the sense, the preposition should immediately follow: and a verb, a participle, or an adjective, may sustain this relation, just as well as a substantive ”_The man spoke of colour_,” does not mean, ”_The man of colour spoke_;” nor does, ”_The member from Delaware replied_,” mean, ”_The member replied from Delaware_”
OBS 9--To make this matter more clear, it may be proper to observe further, that what I call the order of the sense, is not always that order of the words which is fittest to express the sense of a whole period; and that the true antecedent is that word to which the preposition, and its object would naturally be subjoined, were there nothing to interfere with such an arrangement In practice it often happens, that the preposition and its object cannot be placed immediately after the word on which they depend, and which they would naturally follow For example: ”She hates the means _by which_ she lives” That is, ”She hates the means which she _lives by_” Here we cannot say, ”She hates the ard to the preposition _by_, this is really the order of the sense Again: ”Though thou shouldest bray a fool _in awheat with a pestle_, yet will not his foolishness depart from him”--_Prov_, xxvii, 23 Here is no transposition to affect our understanding of the prepositions, yet there is a liability to error, because the words which immediately precede some of them, are not their true antecedents: the text does not really speak of ”_awheat_” or of ”_wheat with a pestle_” To what then are the _mortar_, the _wheat_, and the _pestle_, to be , it ested by the verb _bray_, and not to its object _fool_; for the text does not speak of ”_a fool with a pestle_,” though it does _see wheat_” Indeed, in this instance, as in many others, the verb and its object are so closely associated that it ard to the sense, whether you take both of theether, or either of them separately, as the antecedent to the preposition But, as the instruent rather than with the object, if you will have the substantives alone for antecedents, the natural order of the sense h _thou with_ a pestle shouldest bray a, _fool in_ a _ wheat, yet will not his _foolishness froives to each of the prepositions an antecedent different fron Sanborn observes, ”There seem to be _two kinds_ of relation expressed by prepositions,--an _existing_ and a _connecting_ relation”--_analyt Gram_, p 225 The latter, he adds, ”_is the most important_”--_Ib_, p 226 But it is the for but _nouns_ for antecedents Others besides Harris may have adopted this notion, but I have never been one of the nue the error upon me See _O B Peirce's Grarammarians, and the source of innumerable discrepancies in doctrine, as well as one of the chieftheir interminable disputes, that they suppose _ellipses_ at their own pleasure, and supply in every given instance just ords their fancies est In this work, I adopt for myself, and also reco on all occasions the supposition of any _needless_ ellipses Not only overn more than one object, but therea joint relation to that which is governed by the preposition (1) Examples of joint objects: ”There is an inseparable connection BETWEEN _piety and virtue_”--_Murray's Key_, 8vo, p 171 ”In the conduct of Parmenio, a mixture OF _wisdom and folly_ was very conspicuous”--_Ib_, p 178 ”True happiness is an enemy TO _pomp and noise_”--_Ib_, p 171 (2) Examples of joint antecedents: ”In unity consist the _welfare and security_ OF every society”--_Ib_, p 182 ”It is our duty to be _just and kind_ TO our fellow--creatures, and to be _pious and faithful_ TO Him that made us”--_Ib_, p 181 If the author did not_pious to God_ as well as _faithful to Him_, he has written incorrectly: a comma after _pious_, would alter both the sense and the construction So the text, ”For I am meek, and lowly in heart,” is commonly perverted in our Bibles, for want of a comma after _meek_ The Saviour did not say, he was _meek in heart_: the Greek entle am I, and humble in heart”
OBS 11--Many writers seeovern more than one object Thus L Murray, and his followers: ”The ellipsis of the _preposition_, as well as of the verb, is seen in the following instances: 'He went into the abbeys, halls, and public buildings;' that is, 'He went into the abbeys, he went into the halls, and he went into the public buildings'--'He also went through all the streets, and lanes of the city;'
that is, 'Through all the streets, and through all the lanes,'
&c”--_Murray's Graersoll's Graer's_, 73; _Fish's_, 147; _Guy's_, 91; _Adams's_, 82; _R C Smith's_, 183; _Hamlin's_, 105; _Putnam's_, 139; _Weld's_, 292 Now it is plain, that in neither of these examples is there any such ellipsis at all Of the three prepositions, the first governs three nouns; the second, two; and the third, one only But the last, (which is _of_,) has two antecedents, _streets_ and _lanes_, the co; for the author does not speak of all the streets in the world, but of _all the streets and lanes_ of a particular city Dr Ash has the same example without the comma, and supposes it only an ellipsis of the preposition _through_, and even that supposition is absurd He also furnished the former example, to show an ellipsis, not of the verb _went_, but only of the preposition _into_; and in this too he was utterly wrong See _Ash's Grarammar appeared five years before Murray's, confessedly copied the same examples from Ash; and repeated, not the verb and its noreeably to Ash's erroneous notion See his _Graain the principles of Murray's supposed ellipses, are as inconsistent with each other, as they are severally absurd Had the author explained the second exa to his notion of the first, he should have h all the streets _of the city_, and _he also went_ through all the lanes _of the city_' What a pretty idea is this for a principle of gra to carry it out in parsing! One of the latest writers on granifies, ”_Between hiht's Philosophical Gram_, p 206 And an other absurdly resolves a simple sentence into a compound one, thus: ”'There was a difficulty between John, and his brother' That is, there was a difficulty between John, and _there was a difficulty between_ his brother”--_Jaain, p 130
OBS 12--Two prepositions are not unfrequently connected by a conjunction, and that for different purposes, thus: (1) To express two different relations at once; as, ”The picture of an”--_Society in Aest an alternative in the relation affirmed; as, ”The action will be fully accomplished _at or before_ the tiain: ”The First Future Tense represents the action as yet to come, _either with or without_ respect to the precise time”--_Ib_; and _Felton's Gra direct opposites, this alternative is a thing of course, and the phrase is an idle truism (3) To express two relations so as to affirm the one and deny the other; as, ”Captain, yourself are the fittest to live and reign not _over_, but next and immediately _under_ the people”--_Dryden_ Here, perhaps, ”_the people_” est a mere alternative of words; as, ”NEGATIVELY, adv
_With or by_ denial”--_Webster's Dict_ (5) To add a similar word, for aid or force; as, ”Hence adverbs of time were necessary, _over and above_ the tenses”--See _Murray's Gram_, p 116 ”To take effect _from and after_ the first day of May”--_Newspaper_
OBS 13--In soether, so as jointly to express a sort of compound relation bethat precedes the one and what follows the other: as, ”And they shall sever the wicked _froht out all the rods _fro_ them”--_2 Cor_, vi, 17 ”From Judea, and _froiver _from between_ his feet”--_Gen_, xlix, 10 Thus the preposition _fro itself adapted to the ideas of motion and separation, easily coincides with any preposition of place, to express this sort of relation; the ter used only between _a verb_ and _a noun_, because the relation itself is between _: as, ”The sand _slided from beneath_ my feet”--_Dr Johnson_ In thiswith _from_, to the number _of about_ thirty; as, _from amidst, from around, from before, from behind_, &c Besides these, there are several others, of a more questionable character, which are so to, as to, as for, because of, instead of, off of, out of, over against_, and _round about_
Most or all of these are sometimes resolved in a different way, upon the assumption that the former word is an adverb; yet we occasionally find some of them compounded by the hyphen: as, ”Poainst_ hiument to B iv But the co is set _over against_ an other”--_Bible_
OBS 14--It is not easy to fix a principle by which prepositions uished froovern the objective case; and if we add, that the former do _severally_ require some object after them, it is clear that any hich precedes a preposition,else than a preposition But this destroys all the doctrine of the preceding paragraph, and ad as a _coed, to sora even those whose counter-assertions leave no room for it Under these circumstances, I see no better way, than to refer the student to the definitions of these parts of speech, to exhibit exae for hiht to be rammarians parse differently
OBS 15--If our prepositions were to be divided into classes, the le_ and _Double_ The distinction which some writers make, who divide them into ”_Separable_ and _Inseparable_,” is of no use at all in parsing, because the latter are mere syllables; and the idea of S R Hall, who divides them into ”_Possessive_ and _Relative_,” is positively absurd; for he can show us only _one_ of the former kind, and that one, (the word _of_,) is not always such A _Double Preposition_, if such a thing is admissible, is one that consists of tords which in syntactical parsing ether, because they jointly express the relation between two other terms; as, ”The waters were dried up _froy kept this charge _from off_ us”--_Leslie, on tithes_, p 221 ”Confidence in an unfaithful man in time of trouble, is like a broken tooth, and a foot _out of_ joint”--_Prov_, xxv, 19 ”The beam _out of_ the timber shall answer it”--_Hab_, ii, 11 _Off_ and _out_ are most commonly adverbs, but neither of theain, if _according to_ or _as to_ is a preposition, then is _according_ or _as_ a preposition also, although it does not of itself govern the objective case _As_, thus used, is called a conjunction by so_ to be always a participle, and expressly says, ”It is never a preposition”--_Octavo Dict_ The following is an instance in which, if it is not a preposition, it is a participle: ”This is a construction _not according_ to the rules of gra to_ and _contrary to_ are expressed in Latin and Greek by single prepositions; and if _to_ alone is the preposition in English, then both _according_ and _contrary_ must, in many instances, be _adverbs_ Exa to_ the law, and _contrary_ to law command me to be sh literally an adjective, is often made either an adverb, or a part of a coenerally in error respecting it: as, ”Ha dares not act _contrary to_ his instructions”-- _Murray's Key_, p 179
OBS 17--J W Wright, with soe, everywhere adds _ly_ to the questionable word _according_; as, ”We are usually estily to_ our coly to_ the forly to_ the above principles, the _adjective_ ACCORDING (or _agreeable_) is frequently, but ireeably_)”--_Ib_, p 145
The word _contrary_ he does not notice; but, on the same principle, he would doubtless say, ”He dares not act _contrarily_ to his instructions”
We say indeed, ”He acted _agreeably_ to his instructions;”--and not, ”He acted _agreeable_ to his instructions” It ly_ and _contrarily_ are both of thelish words
If these were adopted, where the character of _according_ and _contrary_ is disputable, there would indeed be no longer any occasion to call these latter either adverbs or prepositions But the fact is, that _no good writers have yet preferred theives an additional syllable to a word that see