thout 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 parse 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 class 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 assume, 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 pronoun 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 associated 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 assign. 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 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 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 may be very literally rendered thus: "For gentle am I, and humble in heart."
