who, he who, we who, ye who, and they who. It tells, however, upon the Verb, which, taking the Person of the Relative, takes that of the Antecedent also. In the example just given, am depends immediately upon who. Meanwhile, who depends on I; the result being that the Verb is in the first Person. To say I, who is your master, am coming, is wrong.

The exceptions to this Concord are only apparent. Neither are they very important. How they occur may be seen by writing such a sentence as it is I, your master, who command you, and then asking whether we might not, instead of command have put commands-in which case the sentence would run-it is I, your master, who commands you-a sentence which, whether right or wrong, is by no means, generally condemned.

Supposing it, however, to be accurate, it gives no exception to the foregoing rule.

That I is in the first Person is clear. So it is that commands is in the third. The Antecedent, however, to com

mands is not the Pronoun I, but the Substantive master.

§ 224. The Antecedent may appear in either the Subject or the Predicate; and it may be called Subjective or Predicate accordingly.

It appears in the Subject in such sentences as he steals trash who steals my purse.

It appears in the Predicate in such sentences as I punished him | who stole my purse.

§ 225. When he, they, or those are Subjective Antecedents, they may be omitted; who steals my purse steals trash.

This omission is not necessary. We may, if we choose, say he who steals, &c. A well-known pairs of couplets run thus

He who fights and runs away
May live to fight another day;
But he who is in battle slain
Will never live to fight again.

If it were not, however, for the metre, he might be omitted; and the sentence run who fights and runs away may live, &c.

§ 226. The Relative is occasionally omitted; i. e. we may say the books I sent for are come, instead of the books which I sent for, &c.

§ 227. The construction of the Relative is by no means easy, and some well-known inaccuracies connected with it are to be found even in our best writers. For instanceeach of the following passages is inaccurate.

him I accuse

The city gates by this has entered.

Coriolanus.

Better leave undone, than by our deeds acquire
Too high a fame when him we serve 's away.

Antony and Cleopatra.

Here, instead of him we should have he.

The explanation, however, of the error is, by no means, difficult. There is an Ellipsis. The full forms would be he whom I accuse has entered the city gates—he whom we serve is away.

Now rule 225 has shown that the Antecedent may be omitted; so that we may, if we choose, write whom I accuse has entered the city gates, or whom we serve is away.

And rule 226 has shown that the Relative may be omitted; so that we may, if we choose, write he I accuse has entered, &c., or, he we serve is away.

No rule, however, says that both can be dispensed with. In the instances before us, however, there is a confusion. It is the Relative, which is omitted, whilst (as if by way of compensation) the Antecedent is put in the Relative's case. § 228. The following instance is also exceptionable.

Satan, than whom

None higher sat, thus spake.

Whom ought to be who.

Paradise Lost.

N

By writing sentences like these in full we easily ascertain the true construction.

Satan spake :

None higher sat than Satan sat.

§ 229. When two words, each capable of being an Antecedent, occur in the same proposition, the Antecedent is ambiguous. Solomon the son of David, who—unless we know what follows, we cannot say whether who refers to David, or to Solomon.

In order to avoid this ambiguity, grammarians have laid it down as a rule that the latter of the two words is the Antecedent. I doubt, however, whether the rule is absolute. At any rate, it is often violated. The same writer who says Solomon the son of David, who slew Goliath, may also say Solomon, the son of David, who built the temple; and it is doubtful whether one expression be not as accurate as the other. In order, however, to justify it, we must treat Solomon-the-son-of-David as a single word.

CONJUNCTIONS.

§ 230. The following sentences contain, each of them, two propositions, and between each of these two propositions it may be seen that there is a connecting word. Rome is enslaved, because Cæsar is ambitious,—the sun shines, and the sky is clear, the moon is intervening, therefore the sun is in eclipse,—it is not day, but it is night,— the town was taken, although a hero defended it.

§ 231. A word that connects two separate propositions is called a Conjunction; from the Latin word conjungo=I join together.

Conjunctions also connect Terms, as, all men are black or

white.

In general, however, a difference of Terms corresponds with a difference of Propositions; so that in most cases, Conjunctions connect Propositions as well as Terms.

§ 232. In sentences like the sun and moon shine, the

father and the son talk, there is the appearance of being only a single proposition, so that all that is connected by means of the conjunction and appears to be the words sun and moon, father and son. This, however, is not the case in reality. The sentence the sun and moon shine contains in fact two separate propositions; one concerning the sun (namely, that it shines), the other concerning the moon (namely, that it shines). The same holds good with the sentence the father and son talk. One proposition states that the father talks; the other that the son talks. The full expressions would be,—

The sun shines and the moon shines,
The father talks and the son talks ;

for these,

The sun and moon shine,

The father and son talk,

are only compendious forms.

The Syntax of Conjunctions, by far the most difficult part of Grammar, is closely allied to that of Adverbs, Prepositions, Verbs, and Relative Pronouns. In these relations consists a great part of its difficulty-a difficulty of which the general character is easily understood. Whilst other words connect only the parts of the same proposition, Conjunctions connect different propositions. In order to understand how many different kinds of Conjunctions can exist we must know all the ways in which one proposition may be connected with another. Many propositions are wholly unconnected. Propositions delivered at long intervals, or by different persons, have, for the most part no relation to each other. In consecutive conversation, however, one statement depends on another. Thus

I am pleased,

because

This has happened;

but

I should have been disappointed,

Supposed friends will be more surprised
than

Satisfied with the arrangement.

§ 233. Conjunctions which connect two or more Terms are called Copulative; as and.

Conjunctions which connect one of two Terms are called Disjunctive; as or.

Disjunctives are either true Disjunctives or Subdisjunctives.

A true Disjunctive separates things. When we say the sun or the moon is shining, we separate two different objects, one of which shines by day, the other by night.

Subdisjunctives separate names. When we say Victoria, or the Queen of England, is our sovereign, we speak of the same object, under different names.

The idea expressed by a Copulative may be strengthened and made clearer by the addition of the words each, both, all three, or the like. We may say both sun and moon are shining. All, Venus, Jupiter, and the Dogstar are visible. We may also say sun and moon are both shining—Venus, &c., are all visible.

The idea expressed by a Disjunctive may be strengthened and made clearer by the addition of either. We may say, either the sun or the moon is shining.

The idea expressed by a Subdisjunctive may be strengthened and made clearer by the phrase in other words. We may say Queen Victoria, in other words, the Queen of England, &c.

In all these cases the words both, &c., either, &c., and in