Page images
PDF
EPUB

So language is composed of words expressing ideas, arranged and bound together in such a manner, that they carry our thoughts to the minds of our hearers.

What part of this work do prepositions perform? We shall see, I think, that their chief office is to unite words, leaving the combining of sentences and parts of sentences, to other connectives.

It would probably not be a great deviation from the truth to suppose, that, in the beginning, all words were nouns or names, "and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." Even the words we call verbs, are only names of actions; and these different words, expressing ideas, have certain relations to each other which it is necessary to represent. For this purpose we employ certain other words, generally small ones, which have often no other office than to act as exponents of these relations.

If a man wished to tell his servant to take a horse to the pasture, he could do it by pointing to the horse, and then to the pasture, with a certain motion of the hand between. Or, if neither the horse nor pasture was in sight, he could say horse and pasture, moving the hand as before. In either case the servant would understand what was meant. But suppose the servant was not in a position to see his master, then a word conveying the same idea as the motion of the hand, would be necessary. We should in English use the word "to,” called a preposition and meaning "placed before ;" that is, it is placed before the word pasture, connects it to the other words of the sentence, and shows in what relation pasture stands to the action of the servant. The term "preposition" answers well as a name in English, and some other languages, but is not of universal application; for in some languages the "preposition" is placed after the consequent term of the relation.

It is evident from the example given above about the horse, that it is often necessary to combine words in order fully to express our ideas. If.I say, “Bring me a ball of snow," the "of" connects snow to ball in such a way as to show that the ball is composed of snow. If I should meet a man in the country and ask him what he was doing? he might reply, "I am collecting;" but this leaves me in doubt, as to whether he is collecting money or something else. question further, I learn that he is collecting a flock. the doubt is now removed; and he adds, "of sheep." that he is collecting; and collecting a drove or flock, and that the flock is composed of sheep.

Pressing the
Only part of
Now I know

i

There are many curious uses of this little word "of." It imparts to the various combinations made with it, a great variety of meanings. A cup of silver is a silver cup, but a cup of water is a cup filled with water. The city of Boston is the city. Boston, or the city called Boston; but the Mayor of Boston is the chief officer in the city government. The book of Genesis, is the book called Genesis; but the epistle of Paul denotes, that Paul was the author of it. In some of these expressions, the connective is not necessary. We can say the city, Boston, but we cannot say the Mayor, Boston. In one instance the "of" is a mere index of apposition; in the other, it denotes possession, or authorship. Custom has established the use of it even where it is not absolutely necessary.

Two words may be connected by different prepositions and while the grammatical relation between them is precisely the same, the words will in our minds have very different relations.

[ocr errors]

We may say, “The bird is in the house- on the house-over the house-before the house-behind the house-near the house," and so on. Here bird and house are connected, and grammatically they hold the same relation to each other; but the meaning of each preposition gives us a very different idea of the position or relation of the bird to the house.

It must not, however, be supposed that all the relations of words have a visible exponent or sign. In the sentence "Moses gave the law of God to the Jewish people," there are three relations. The first is between gave and law, but the relation has no exponent. The action of the verb and the position of "law" are sufficient to indicate it. Law and God are connected by "of," which is the sign of the relation and denotes possession, equivalent to God's law. The third relation is between gave and the Jewish people, and with the sentence in its present form a word is necessary to show it. If, however, I write it," Moses gave the Jewish people the law of God," no exponent is necessary, but if I substitute for gave the word delivered, I must restore the preposition whatever be the position of "Jewish people." In some languages no connecting word is necessary. In Latin, it would stand thus: "Moises dedit legem Dei populo Judaico." The connection or relation is correctly shown by the form or ending of the words, and the sentence would convey the same idea to a Roman, that it does in English to us; but the absence of these wordendings, or cases makes it necessary for us to use the preposition,

although, in this particular sentence, it could be avoided by writing the sentence thus: "Moses gave the Jewish people God's law," but the expression would be stiff and less elegant.

We have now partially considered the force of the preposition as a connective, and if we examine the subject carefully, we shall see how important a part it plays in the language. We shall also discover the reason for the multiplying of prepositions and the growing tendency to trade off the old for new and better ones.

[ocr errors]

The human mind will always find a way to express its ideas, and as these ideas; in a growing civilization, are constantly becoming more and more refined, and nicer shades of meaning are to be expressed, this word is supplied, either by forming new combinations of words, or by giving different meanings to the same combinations. Our desire to save time leads us to contract sentences, so as to give our ideas as quickly as possible, and in doing this we form prepositions by deflection, that is, by turning other words into prepositions, by making them do the work of prepositions. This is seen by such expressions as "Pending the motion the House adjourned;" "Concerning this report, &c;" "All went except one." Here "except" is but a verb. "All went, I except one." Still if these words perform the work of prepositions I see no objection to calling them such.

A true preposition is wholly unsusceptible of inflection, though other parts of speech, in a state of inflection, are sometimes used in a prepositional sense.

There are in English but twelve absolute prepositions. These are “in, on, of, at, up, by, to, for, from, till, with, though," but now grammarians give us over sixty which are supposed to be used in such

a sense.

Others, as "near" and "like," are equally entitled to the name, for we seldom use the "to" after them, and yet few grammarians have ventured to put them into their list. "The son is like (to) his father." Here "like" is properly an adjective, equivalent to “similar," but by omitting the "to" we force it to take on another "nature;" and while it does the work of a preposition, shall we deny it the name? It becomes then a question of degree. Have or have not such words done the work of prepositions sufficiently long to be entitled to the name?

On the other hand, we find many words, once in good use as prepositions, now nearly or wholly obsolete. Of these I will mention, "abaft, adown, afore, aloft, aloof, inside, minus." Some of these are

[ocr errors]

now occasionally used in technical expressions, as "abaft the shaft; but we do not hear, "They stood aloof him," but," They stood aloof from him."

Some once living prepositions are now dead; others are dying, and others again are just coming into existence. The same is true of other parts of speech, and when we consider these facts, we can easily see one great cause of the wranglings and disputes among grammarians. Some affirm that the word is dead in the sense of such a part of speech, while others declare that it is still alive and active. Of the new ones it is said by some, that they are intruders, and have no claim to respect, while others are happy to make their acquaintance and recognize their title. Time will settle the question. If such words give vivacity and terseness to expressious, and are not too inelegant, they are as sure to be adopted as the language is to be spoken. But until they are fully recognized—until doctors agree— what shall we little folks do? It may, perhaps, be better for us to follow the advice of the poet:

"In words, as fashions, the same rule will hold ;

Alike fantastic if too new or old;

Be not the first by whom the new are tried,
Nor yet the last to lay the old aside.".

As we have now seen that prepositions are expressive of the relations which nouns, as the signs of things, bear to one another, or to verbs, the symbols of agency, with which they are construed, and answers the same purpose in connecting words, which, as we shall see, conjunctions answer in connecting clauses, let me close this article with a few examples of the different meanings given to similar combinations. I will take only the preposition with in the following sentences: I rode with my brother.

I rode with a horse.

I filled the dish with sugar.
I filled the dish with a spoon.
I sat with my head uncovered.
I was in love with the scenery.
I was delighted with the music.

In the first sentence, I accompanied my brother. In the second, the horse aided me, or was the cause of my moving.

In the third, the sugar was, the means used to fill the dish- that which occupied the space.

In the fourth the spoon was the instrument used.

In the fifth, with is equivalent to having.

The sixth and seventh are not easily described but can be felt. My next article will be on Conjunctions.

WAITING!

FROM "LATER POEMS," BY MRS. JULIA WARD HOWE.

I have set my house in order

For a stately step to grace;

I have bidden the mirrors keep record

Of a never-forgotten face;

I have brightened with thrifty cunning
The walls of my sylvan home;

They are beautiful in the shadow
Of him who vouchsafes to come.

I have swept the leaves from the greensward,
And the gray stones twinkle and shine;

I have loosened each fretful tangle

Of the twisted cedar and vine;

I have ordered the waters waste not

Their splendors upon mine eye,

But to wait, like my heart, for thy footsteps,

And gush when drawest nigh.

Myself I would dress for thy presence;
But their I must stand and weep,

Since the years that teach Love's value

His vanishing treasure sweep.

But words that are spells of magic,

And merciful looks and ways,
Shall brighten the rusted features
That faded when none did praise.

Thou gracious and lordly creature,
Do the trees, when thou passest by,
Let down, their fair arms to enlace thee,

And the flowers reach up to thine eye?

Do they wait, all athrill, when thou passest,

For a touch of thy life divine?

Do they fold their meek hands when thou fleetest
And die for a breath of thine?

ALGERNON.

« PreviousContinue »