The Grammar of English Grammars Part 87

A Preposition is a word used to express some relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally placed before a noun or a p.r.o.noun: 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 cla.s.sification may make even infinites the subjects of sure science. Every _relation_ of course implies more objects, and more terms, than one; for any one thing, 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 p.r.o.noun, a verb, a participle, or an adverb; and the _subsequent_ or _governed_ term may be a noun, a p.r.o.noun, a p.r.o.nominal adjective, an infinitive verb, or a participle. In some instances, also, as in the phrases, _in vain, on high, 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 combinations which may be given 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 terms misconceived; how shall we estimate the importance of a right explanation, and a right use, of this part of speech?

OBS. 3.--The grammarian whom Lowth compliments, as excelling all others, in "acuteness of investigation, perspicuity of explication, and elegance of method;" and as surpa.s.sing all but Aristotle, in the beauty and perfectness of his philological a.n.a.lysis; commences his chapter on conjunctions in the following manner: "Connectives are the subject of what follows; which, _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 two we 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 amiss to treat conjunctions before prepositions; though 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 pa.s.sage 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 p.r.o.nouns, 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 _simplest_ of all the parts of speech: in our common schemes of grammar, it has neither cla.s.ses nor modifications. Every connective word that governs an object after it, is called a preposition, _because it does so_; and in etymological parsing, 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 omit the definitions, and state the construction, we ought to explain what terms the preposition connects, and to give a rule adapted to this office of the particle. It is a palpable defect in nearly all our grammars, that their syntax contains NO SUCH RULE. "Prepositions govern 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, when we pretend to pa.r.s.e syntactically.

OBS. 6.--Prepositions and their objects very often precede the words on which they depend, and sometimes at a great distance. Of this we have an example, at the opening of Milton's Paradise Lost; where "_Of_," the first word, depends upon "_Sing_," in the sixth line below; for the meaning is--"_Sing of man's first disobedience_,"

&c. To find the terms of the relation, is to find the _meaning_ of the pa.s.sage; a very useful exercise, provided the words have a meaning which is worth knowing. The following text 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 me, _in_ the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit _in_ the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."--_Matt._, xix, 28. The second _in_ is manifestly wrong: 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 misplaced. Such errors always vex an intelligent reader. He sees the terms mismatched, the intended connection doubtful, the sense obscured, and wishes the author could have valued his own meaning enough to have made it intelligible;--that is, (to speak technically,) enough to have made it a certain clew to his syntax. We can neither pa.r.s.e nor correct what we 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, the meaning of 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 almost all the prepositions were originally formed to denote relations of place; that this cla.s.s of relations is primary, being 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 some prepositions to denote the _contiguous_ 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 a.s.sume, that, in such examples as the following,--"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 p.r.o.noun before it. See _Hermes_, pp. 266 and 267. Now the true antecedent is, unquestionably, that word which, 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 means she _lives by which_;" and yet, in regard to the preposition _by_, this is really the order of the sense. Again: "Though thou shouldest bray a fool _in a mortar among wheat 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 "_a mortar among wheat_" or of "_wheat with a pestle_." To what then are the _mortar_, the _wheat_, and the _pestle_, to be mentally subjoined? If all of them, to any one thing, it must be to the _action_ suggested 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 _seem_ to speak of "_a fool in a mortar_, and _among wheat_." Indeed, in this instance, as in many others, the verb and its object are so closely a.s.sociated that it makes but little difference in regard to the sense, whether you take both of them together, or either of them separately, as the antecedent to the preposition. But, as the instrument of an action is with the agent rather than with the object, if you will have the substantives alone for antecedents, the natural order of the sense must be supposed to be this: "Though _thou with_ a pestle shouldest bray a, _fool in_ a mortar [and] _among_ wheat, yet will not his _foolishness from_ him depart." This gives to each of the prepositions an antecedent different from that which I should a.s.sign. Sanborn observes, "There seem to be _two kinds_ of relation expressed by prepositions,--an _existing_ and a _connecting_ relation."--_a.n.a.lyt. Gram._, p. 225. The latter, he adds, "_is the most important_."--_Ib._, p. 226. But it is the former that admits nothing but _nouns_ for antecedents. Others besides Harris may have adopted this notion, but I have never been one of the number, though a certain author scruples not to charge the error upon me. See _O. B Peirce's Gram._, p. 165.

OBS. 10.--It is a very common error among grammarians, and the source of innumerable discrepancies in doctrine, as well as one of the chief means of maintaining their interminable disputes, that they suppose _ellipses_ at their own pleasure, and supply in every given instance just what words their fancies may suggest. In this work, I adopt for myself, and also recommend to others, the contrary course of avoiding on all occasions the supposition of any _needless_ ellipses. Not only may the same preposition govern more than one object, but there may also be more than one antecedent word, bearing a 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 mean to speak of being _pious to G.o.d_ 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 may be _very literally_ rendered thus: "For gentle am I, and humble in heart."

OBS. 11.--Many writers seem to suppose, that no preposition can govern 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 Gram._, 8vo, p. 219. See the same interpretations in _Ingersoll's Gram._, p. 155; _Merchant's_, 100; _Picket's_, 211; _Alger'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 comma after _streets_ being wrong; 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 Gram._, p. 100. Bicknell also, whose grammar appeared five years before Murray's, confessedly copied the same examples from Ash; and repeated, not the verb and its nominative, but only the prepositions _through_ and _into_, agreeably to Ash's erroneous notion. See his _Grammatical Wreath_, Part i, p. 124. Again the principles of Murray's supposed ellipses, are as inconsistent with each other, as they are severally absurd. Had the author explained the second example according to his notion of the first, he should have made it to mean, '_He also went_ through 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 grammar! And what a mult.i.tude of admirers are pretending to carry it out in parsing! One of the latest writers on grammar says, that, "_Between him and me_" signifies, "_Between him, and between me_!"--_Wright'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."--_James Brown's English Syntax_, p. 127; and again, 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 my travels _in and around_ Michigan."--_Society in America_, i, 231. (2.) To suggest an alternative in the relation affirmed; as, "The action will be fully accomplished _at or before_ the time."--_Murray's Gram._, i, 72. Again: "The First Future Tense represents the action as yet to come, _either with or without_ respect to the precise time."--_Ib._; and _Felton's Gram._, p. 23. _With_ and _without_ being 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_" may be understood after _over_. (4.) To suggest 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 some instances, two prepositions come directly together, so as jointly to express a sort of compound relation between what precedes the one and what follows the other: as, "And they shall sever the wicked _from among_ the just."--_Matt._, xiii, 49. "Moses brought out all the rods _from before_ the Lord."--_Numb._, xvii, 9. "Come out _from among_ them."--_2 Cor._, vi, 17. "From Judea, and _from beyond_ Jordan."--_Matt_. iv, 25.

"Nor a lawgiver _from between_ his feet."--_Gen._, xlix, 10. Thus the preposition _from_, being itself adapted to the ideas of motion and separation, easily coincides with any preposition of place, to express this sort of relation; the terms however have a limited application, being used only between _a verb_ and _a noun_, because the relation itself is between _motion_ and _the place_ of its beginning: as, "The sand _slided from beneath_ my feet."--_Dr. Johnson_. In this manner, we may form _complex prepositions_ beginning with _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 sometimes referred to the same cla.s.s; as, _according 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 a.s.sumption that the former word is an adverb; yet we occasionally find some of them compounded by the hyphen: as, "Pompey's lieutenants, Afranius and Petreius, who lay _over-against_ him, decamp suddenly."--_Rowe's Lucan_, Argument to B. iv. But the common fas.h.i.+on is, to write them separately; as, "One thing is set _over against_ an other."--_Bible_.

OBS. 14.--It is not easy to fix a principle by which prepositions may in all cases be distinguished from adverbs. The latter, we say, do not govern the objective case; and if we add, that the former do _severally_ require some object after them, it is clear that any word which precedes a preposition, must needs be something else than a preposition. But this destroys all the doctrine of the preceding paragraph, and admits of no such thing as a _complex preposition_; whereas that doctrine is acknowledged, to some extent or other, by every one of our grammarians, not excepting even those whose counter-a.s.sertions leave no room for it. Under these circ.u.mstances, I see no better way, than to refer the student to the definitions of these parts of speech, to exhibit examples in all needful variety, and then let him judge for himself what disposition ought to be made of those words which different grammarians pa.r.s.e differently.

OBS. 15.--If our prepositions were to be divided into cla.s.ses, the most useful distinction would be, to divide them into _Single_ 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 two words which in syntactical parsing must be taken together, because they jointly express the relation between two other terms; as, "The waters were dried up _from off_ the earth."--_Gen._, viii, 13. "The clergy kept this charge _from off_ us."--_Leslie, on t.i.thes_, 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 them can be called an adverb here.

OBS. 16.--Again, 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 some, an adverb by others. Dr. Webster considers _according_ 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 grammar."--_Murray's Gram._, Vol. ii, p. 22. But _according 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_. Example: "For dost thou sit as judging me _according to_ the law, and _contrary_ to law command me to be smitten?" (See the Greek of Acts, xxiii, 3.) _Contrary_, though literally an adjective, is often made either an adverb, or a part of a complex preposition, unless the grammarians are generally in error respecting it: as, "Ha dares not act _contrary to_ his instructions."-- _Murray's Key_, p. 179.

OBS. 17.--J. W. Wright, with some appearance of a.n.a.logy on his side, but none of usage, everywhere adds _ly_ to the questionable word _according_; as, "We are usually estimated _accordingly to_ our company."-- _Philosophical Gram._, p. 127. "_Accordingly to_ the forms in which they are employed."--_Ib._, p. 137. "_Accordingly to_ the above principles, the _adjective_ ACCORDING (or _agreeable_) is frequently, but improperly, subst.i.tuted for the adverb ACCORDINGLY (or _agreeably_.)"--_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 must also be admitted, that the adverbs _accordingly_ and _contrarily_ are both of them good English 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 them_, in such phrases; and the adverbial ending _ly_ gives an additional syllable to a word that seems already quite too long.

OBS. 18.--_Instead_ is reckoned an adverb by some, a preposition by others; and a few write _instead-of_ with a needless hyphen. The best way of settling the grammatical question respecting this term, is, to write the noun _stead_ as a separate word, governed by _in_. Bating the respect that is due to anomalous usage, there would be more propriety in compounding _in quest of, in lieu of_, and many similar phrases. For _stead_ is not always followed by _of_, nor always preceded by _in_, nor always made part of a compound. We say, _in our stead, in your stead, in their stead_, &c.; but _lieu_, which has the same meaning as _stead_, is much more limited in construction. Examples: "In _the stead_ of sinners, He, a divine and human person, suffered."--_Barnes's Notes_. "Christ suffered in _the place_ and _stead_ of sinners."--_Ib._ "_For_, in its primary sense, is _pro, loco alterius_, in _the stead_ or _place_ of _another_."--_Lowth's Gram._, p.

65.

"If it may stand him more in _stead_ to lie."

--_Milt., P. L._, B. i, l. 473.

"But here thy sword can do thee little _stead_."

--_Id., Comus_, l. 611.

OBS. 19.--_From forth_ and _from out_ are two poetical phrases, apparently synonymous, in which there is a fanciful transposition of the terms, and perhaps a change of _forth_ and _out_ from adverbs to prepositions. Each phrase is equivalent in meaning to _out of_ or _out from. Forth_, under other circ.u.mstances, is never a preposition; though _out_, perhaps, may be.

We speak as familiarly of going _out doors_, as of going _up stairs_, or _down cellar_. Hence _from out_ may be pa.r.s.ed as a complex preposition, though the other phrase should seem to be a mere example of hyperbaton:

"I saw _from out_ the wave her structures rise."--_Byron_.

"Peeping _from forth_ their alleys green."--_Collins_.

OBS. 20.--"_Out of_ and _as to_," says one grammarian, "are properly prepositions, although they are double words. They may be called _compound_ prepositions."--_Cooper's Gram._, p. 103. I have called the _complex_ prepositions _double_ rather than _compound_, because several of the single prepositions are compound words; as, _into, notwithstanding, overthwart, throughout, upon, within, without_. And even some of these may follow the preposition _from_; as, "If he shall have removed _from within_ the limits of this state." But _in_ and _to, up_ and _on, with_ and _in_, are not always compounded when they come together, because the sense may positively demand that the former be taken as an adverb, and the latter only as a preposition: as, "I will come _in to_ him, and will sup with him."--_Rev._, iii, 20. "A statue of Venus was set _up on_ Mount Calvary."--_M'Ilvaine's Lectures_, p. 332. "The troubles which we meet _with in_ the world."--_Blair_. And even two prepositions may be brought together without union or coalescence; because the object of the first one may be expressed or understood _before_ it: as, "The man whom you spoke _within_ the street;"--"The treatment you complain _of on_ this occasion;"--"The house that you live _in in_ the summer;"--"Such a dress as she had _on in_ the evening."

OBS. 21.--Some grammarians a.s.sume, that, "Two prepositions in immediate succession require a noun to be _understood_ between them; as, 'Hard by, a cottage chimney smokes, _From betwixt_ two aged oaks.'--'The mingling notes came softened _from below_.'"--_Nutting's Gram._, p. 105. This author would probably understand here--"From _the s.p.a.ce_ betwixt two aged oaks;"--"came softened from _the region_ below _us_." But he did not consider all the examples that are included in his proposition; nor did he rightly regard even those which he cites. The doctrine will be found a very awkward one in practice; and an other objection to it is, that most of the ellipses which it supposes, are entirely imaginary. If there were truth in his a.s.sumption, the compounding of prepositions would be positively precluded. The terms _over-against_ and _round-about_ are sometimes written with the hyphen, and perhaps it would be well if all the complex prepositions were regularly compounded; but, as I before suggested, such is not the present fas.h.i.+on of writing them, and the general usage is not to be controlled by what any individual may think.

OBS. 22.--Instances may, doubtless, occur, in which the object of a preposition is suppressed by ellipsis, when an other preposition follows, so as to bring together two that do not denote a compound relation, and do not, in any wise, form one complex preposition. Of such suppression, the following is an example; and, I think, a double one: "They take p.r.o.nouns _after instead of before_ them."--_Fowler, E. Gram._, --521. This may be interpreted to mean, and probably does mean--"They take p.r.o.nouns after _them_ in _stead_ of _taking them_ before them."

OBS. 23.--In some instances, the words _in, on, of, for, to, with_, and others commonly reckoned prepositions, are used after infinitives or participles, in a sort of _adverbial_ construction, because they do not govern any objective; yet not exactly in the usual sense of adverbs, because they evidently express the relation between the verb or participle and a nominative or objective going before. Examples: "Houses are built to live _in_, and not to look _on_; therefore let use be preferred before uniformity, except where both may be had."--_Ld. Kames_. "These are not mysteries for ordinary readers to be let _into_."--ADDISON: _Joh. Dict., w.

Let._ "Heaven is worth dying _for_, though earth is not worth living _for_."--_R. Hall_. "What! have ye not houses to eat and to drink _in_?"--_1 Cor._, xi, 22. This is a very peculiar idiom of our language; and if we say, "Have ye not houses _in which_ to eat and to drink?" we form _an other_ which is not much less so. Greek: "[Greek: Mae gar oikias ouk echete eis to esthiein kai pinein];" Latin: "Num enim domos non habetis ad manducandum et bibendum?"--_Leusden_. "N'avez vous pas des maisons pour manger et pour boire?"--_French Bible_.[315]

OBS. 24.--In OBS. 10th, of Chapter Fourth, on Adjectives, it was shown that words of _place_, (such as, _above, below, beneath, under_, and the like,) are sometimes set before nouns in the character of adjectives, and not of prepositions: as, "In the _above_ list,"--"From the _above_ list."--_Bullions', E. Gram._, p. 70. To the cla.s.s of adjectives also, rather than to that of adverbs, may some such words be referred, when, without governing the objective case, they are put _after_ nouns to signify place: as, "The _way_ of life is _above_ to the wise, that he may depart from _h.e.l.l beneath_."--_Prov._, xv, 24. "Of any thing that is in _heaven above_, or that is in the _earth beneath_."--_Exod._, xx, 4.

"Say first, of _G.o.d above_ or _man below_, What can we reason but from what we know?"--_Pope_.

LIST OF THE PREPOSITIONS.

The following are the princ.i.p.al prepositions, arranged alphabetically: _Aboard, about, above, across, after, against, along, amid_ or _amidst, among_ or _amongst, around, at, athwart;--Bating, before, behind, below, beneath, beside or besides, between_ or _betwixt, beyond, by;--Concerning;--Down, during;--Ere, except, excepting;--For, from;--In, into;--Mid_ or _midst;--Notwithstanding;--Of, off,[316] on, out, over, overthwart;--Past, pending;--Regarding, respecting, round;--Since;--Through, throughout, till, to, touching, toward_ or _towards;--Under, underneath, until, unto, up, upon;--With, within, without_.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--Grammarians differ considerably in their tables of the English prepositions. Nor are they all of one opinion, concerning either the characteristics of this part of speech, or the particular instances in which the acknowledged properties of a preposition are to be found. Some teach that, "Every preposition requires an _objective case_ after it."--_Lennie_, p. 50; _Bullions, Prin. of E. Gram._, p. 69. In opposition to this, I suppose that the preposition _to_ may take an _infinitive verb_ after it; that _about_ also may be a preposition, in the phrase, "_about to write_;" that _about, above, after, against, by, for, from, in, of_, and some other prepositions, may govern _participles_, as such; (i. e. without making them nouns, or cases;) and, lastly, that after a preposition an _adverb_ is sometimes construed substantively, and yet is indeclinable; as, _for once, from afar, from above, at unawares_.

OBS. 2.--The writers just quoted, proceed to say: "When a _preposition does not govern_ an objective case, it becomes an adverb; as, 'He rides _about_.' But in such phrases as, _cast up, hold out, fall on_, the words _up, out_, and _on_, must be considered as _a part_ of the _verb_, rather than as prepositions or adverbs."--_Lennie's Prin. of E. Gram._, p. 50; _Bullions's_, p. 59; _his a.n.a.lyt. and P. Gram._, p. 109. Both these sentences are erroneous: the one, more particularly so, in expression; the other, in doctrine. As the preposition is chiefly distinguished by its regimen, it is absurd to speak of it as governing nothing; yet it does not always govern the objective case, for participles and infinitives have no cases. _About, up, out_, and _on_, as here cited, are all of them _adverbs_; and so are all other particles that thus qualify verbs, without governing any thing. L. Murray grossly errs when ha a.s.sumes that, "The distinct component parts of such phrases as, _to cast up, to fall on, to bear oat, to give over, &c._, are _no guide_ to the sense of the whole."

Surely, "to cast _up_" is to cast _somehow_, though the meaning of the phrase may be "_to compute_." By this author, and some others, all _such adverbs_ are absurdly called _prepositions_, and are also as absurdly declared to be _parts_ of the preceding verbs! See _Murray's Gram._, p.

117; _W. Allen's_, 179; _Kirkham's_, 95; _R. G. Smith's_, 93; _Fisk's_, 86; _Butler's_, 63; _Wells's_, 146.

OBS. 3--In comparing the different English grammars now in use, we often find the primary distinction of the parts of speech, and every thing that depends upon it, greatly perplexed by the _fancied ellipses_, and _forced constructions_, to which their authors resort. Thus Kirkham: "Prepositions are sometimes erroneously called adverbs, when their nouns are understood.

'He rides _about_;' that is, about the _town, country_, or _something_ else. 'She was _near_ [the _act_ or _misfortune_ of] falling;' 'But do not _after_ [that _time_ or _event_] lay the blame on me.' 'He came _down_ [the _ascent_] from the hill;' 'They lifted him _up_ [the _ascent_] out of the pit.' 'The angels _above_;'--above _us_--'Above these lower _heavens_, to us invisible, or dimly seen.'"--_Gram._, p. 89. The errors of this pa.s.sage are almost as numerous as the words; and those to which the doctrine leads are absolutely innumerable. That _up_ and _down_, with verbs of motion, imply ascent and descent, as _wisely_ and _foolishly_ imply wisdom and folly, is not to be denied; but the grammatical bathos of coming "_down [the ascent] from the hill" of science_, should startle those whose faces are directed upward! _Downward ascent_ is a movement worthy only of Kirkham, and his Irish rival, Joseph W. Wright. The _brackets_ here used are Kirkham's, not mine.

OBS. 4.--"Some of the _prepositions_," says L. Murray, "have the _appearance and effect_ of conjunctions: as, '_After_ their prisons were thrown open,' &c. '_Before_ I die;' 'They made haste to be prepared _against_ their friends arrived:' but if the noun _time_, which is _understood_, be added, they will lose their _conjunctive form_: as, 'After [_the time when_] their prisons,' &c."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 119. Here, _after, before_, and _against_, are neither conjunctions nor prepositions, but conjunctive _adverbs of time_, referring to the verbs which follow them, and also, when the sentences are completed, to others antecedent. The awkward addition of "_the time when_," is a sheer perversion. If _after, before_, and the like, can ever be adverbs, they are so here, and not conjunctions, or prepositions.

OBS. 5.--But the great Compiler proceeds: "The _prepositions, after, before, above, beneath_, and several others, sometimes _appear to be adverbs_, and may be _so considered_: as, 'They had their reward soon _after_;' 'He died not long _before_;' 'He dwells _above_;' but if the nouns _time_ and _place_ be added, they will lose their adverbial form: as, 'He died not long _before that time_,' &c."--_Ib._ Now, I say, when any of the foregoing words "_appear_ to be adverbs," they _are_ adverbs, and, if adverbs, then not prepositions. But to consider prepositions to be adverbs, as Murray here does, or seems to do; and to suppose "the NOUNS _time_ AND _place_" to be understood in the several examples here cited, as he also does, or seems to do; are singly such absurdities as no grammarian should fail to detect, and together such a knot of blunders, as ought to be wondered at, even in the Compiler's humblest copyist. In the following text, there is neither preposition nor ellipsis: