the verb in the accessory proposition occur in such numbers that it is almost superfluous to present any in this place. "They for whom we labor," &c. The world IN WHICH we SOJOURN is not our home. The Being BY WHOM WE ARE PROTECTED, IN WHOM we LIVE, is eternal.

(20) That as a relative is, we believe, never used with a preposition before it; perhaps, because it might be confounded with that, the determinative substantively employed with a preposition preceding When a preposition is to precede, we must employ whom to represenɩ persons and which to represent nonpersonals. When the arrangement is changed so that the preposition is separated from the pronoun, we can employ that, as, "He is the man, that you were acquainted with. That alone without a preposition sometimes serves the purpose of a noun and preposition complement, in other words, is equivalent to which with a preposition; thus, He cannot behave in the way that you behave,—— He cannot behave in the way IN WHICH you behave.

EXERCISES.-A given number of compound propositions to be constructed having accessories in which the verb is modified by the conjunctive pronoun and a preposition.

(21) Of the conjunctive pronoun employed as a dative modification in the accessory proposition it is more difficult to find satisfactory examples. We can readily find examples in which the pronoun is, we believe, really a dative, as, The master WHOм you serve; the laws WHICH we obey. But the pronoun thus used is now recognised as an accusative and the verbs as active verbs; though this recognition cannot well be reconciled with the history of the use of these verbs in our language. (See §79, note pp. 219, 220.) We have an example in Ezekiel 31: 2 of the interrogative whom used as dative modification of the adjective like: "whom art thou like in thy greatness?" In the eighteenth verse of the same chapter we find "to whom art thou like in thy glory?" &c. Such expressions as the man WHOM we refused admittance, are perhaps unsanctioned by good usage. We scarcely venture to use a dative except immediately after the verb, and the conjunctive pronoun cannot occupy that place in an accessory proposition, as we shall see when we come to treat of the collocation of the conjunctive word.

§ 113. OF EXPLICATIVE, OR EPITHETIC ADJECTIVE ACCESSORY PROPOSITIONS.--(1). The adjective accessory propositions presented in our

(20) Repeat the substance of what is said of the conjunctive that employed as noun and preposition modification.

(21) Repeat the substance of what is said of the conjunctive pronoun employed as dativa modification in the accessory.

§ 113. (1) Repeat the introductory remark. (2) Illustrate it by an example.

examples so far serve as essential modifications of the antecedent noun. They all express something indispensably necessary to the enunciation of the thought declared in the main assertion of the compound proposition. (2) Thus, when we say The youth who STUDIES DILIGENTLY deserves praise, the accessory proposition, who studies diligently, is an essential part of the subject of the principal proposition. It is not youth, but the youth described in the accessory, that deserves praise.

(3) But an accessory proposition is sometimes employed as merely explicative of the antecedent, similarly to an adjective employed as a mere epithet and not essential to the assertion in which it is used. We may first, for the sake of perspicuity, and because we have not alluded to this matter in treating of the descriptive adjective modification, give an example of the adjective employed as a mere epithet. (4) Socrates THE WISE, THE GOOD, fell a victim to the prejudices of his fellow-citizens; or, The WISE and GOOD Socrates fell a victim; or, WISE and GOOD Socrates fell, &c. Here wise and good are not essential to render the subject capable of having the predicate in the proposition asserted of it: they merely serve as epithets. (5) In fact, an adjective thus employed serves to add something as an appendage to a thought beyond what is mainly expressed in the proposition. Thus wise and good serve in the example above to express, in an abridged form, two thoughts in reference to the subject Socrates, distinct from that formally asserted; yet these thoughts are so thrown in as to modify in some manner the principal assertion, though not essential to it. They may aggravate the guilt of putting Socrates to death, or they may heighten the regret felt that such a character should have perished as he did, according to the purpose of the speaker or writer, as exhibited in the general tenor of the discourse. (6) Adjectives thus employed to indicate something without which the proposition would stand grammatically complete and logically true, are called EPITHETS, that is, (attributes) superadded or put to, because they express something beyond what is absolutely requisite to the completion of the assertion. (7) All these epithets may be regarded as expressing a kind of parenthetic thoughtsthoughts introduced within a construction intended mainly and formally to express another and distinct thought. (8) So of what has been named the explicative accessory proposition; (it might with

(3) In what other way are adjective accessories sometimes employed? (4) Give an ex. ample of an adjective used as an epithet. (5) What purpose does an adjective thus employed serve? Illustrate by the example already given. (6) Teil what is said in reference to the name given to adjectives thus used. (7) How may all these epithets be regarded! (8) Apply what has been said to the explicative or epithetic accessory. (9) What would

great propriety be called the epithetic accessory ;) it is thrown parenthetically within another proposition in the form, but without the force, of a modifying accessory. (9) In fact, if regarded strictly as a completing accessory, it would often change, or injure, or destroy the sense of the compound proposition. (10) Let us illustrate this by an example, "Man, that is born of a woman, is of few days." Here the accessory, "That is born of a woman," is merely explicative or epithetic. It expresses a thought of the subject man, having connection with the general train or drift of the discourse, that is to say, with the representation of man's frailty and transiency. But it does not express an essential complement of the word man as subject of the proposition "Man is of few days." In this assertion the word man is used unmodified in its unlimited sense, as including all mankind. It is not limited or restricted by the words "That is born of a woman," as by a true modifying accessory proposition essential to the sense of the principal proposition. To limit the word man by this accessory we must place before it the sign which in our language indicates limitation or determinativeness, and thus we change, or, rather, we destroy the sense. In fact, by treating this as an essential modifying accessory, we obtain a compound proposition which implies an absurdity. Both THE man that is born of a woman is of few days; and THE men that are born of women are of few days, are absurd assertions; since they imply, according to the laws of our language, that only some men are so born, and only such are of few days. This is manifestly not the meaning of the words as they stand in the original quotation. There a well-known truth is expressed in a manner perfectly accordant with the established laws of language.

(11) We may here remark that in the written language this kind of explicative or epithetic proposition is distinguished by the punctuation. The ordinary modifying accessory proposition connected with the antecedent by a conjunctive pronoun, being essential to complete it, is not separated from the principal proposition by commas in the generality of modern printed books, whereas the explicative accessory proposition is, or, ought to be, separated by commas from the principal proposition. (See Appendix on Punctuation, § 160.)

(12) In a case like the example above given, the accessory is also indicated, as we have incidentally noticed, by the fact that no

often be the consequence if the explicative accessory should be considered as a completing accessory? (10) Repeat the example, and the substance of the illustration.

(11) Describe the manner in which the completing and explicative accessory are distinguished by punctuation in written discourse.

(12) Repeat the substance of what is said of another way of distinguishing these twe

determinative is placed before the word man, which ought to be don if man were limited or restricted by the accessory proposition. A determinative generally either a or the, sometimes, for greater emphasis, that, is placed before all nouns which admit of a determinative in accordance with the usage of language, when these nouns are strictly limited by an adjective accessory proposition. This circumstance, however, will not serve to distinguish the essentially modifying accessory from the explicative accessory. When a common concrete noun (the class chiefly susceptible of determinative modification) is not preceded by a determinative, we may safely consider the accessory as merely explicative or epithetic, but when such nouns are preceded by a determinative, we cannot conclude that the accessory is not merely explicative, because the noun may be rendered determinate by something else, though not by the accessory, and may on this account be accompanied by the determinative sign. This mode of indication would also fail us whenever the word to which the accessory is attached happens to be one of that class which does not take a determinative, (because, naturally and necessarily, always determinate,) for example, proper names, generally in our language abstract nouns, and personal pronouns. (13) The nature of the accessory must therefore be determined by the sense. No rule for doing this, founded on the form of language, is of universal application. (14) If fixed rules of punctuation were adopted and consistently followed, these two kinds of accessories might always be distinguished in written language. We subjoin some examples of the explicative accessory for the purpose of clearer illustration.

(15) "My lord of Hereford here, whom you call king,

Is a foul traitor to proud Hereford's king.

"Whom you call king," is in this place to be regarded as a parenthetic explicative proposition. The sense of the principal proposition is not dependent on it. It was not alone" as called king" by his followers, that Hereford was a traitor. His treason was not limited to this circumstance, nor is it as displayed or indicated by this circumstance that the speaker here asserts his treason. He rather asserts him to be a traitor in despite of this circumstance. (16) In the following compound proposition, "God, who sitteth above, and presides in high authority over all worlds, is mindful of man,"

kinds of accessories. (13) How must the nature of the accessory be determined? (14) What is said of a means of determining it in written language?

(15) Repeat the example here given and the remarks made upon it. (16) Illustrate the distinction between completing and explicative accessories by a second example.

the two adjective accessory propositions, "who sitteth above, and presides in high authority over all worlds," may be considered, if we please, as merely explicative or epithetic. But in the proposition written as Dr. Chalmers has in fact written it, "The God who sitteth above," &c. these accessories become essential parts of the complete subject of the principal proposition.*

(17) It must be admitted that the lines of demarcation between the completing and the epithetic accessory (and the same, we believe, may be said of the completing and epithetic adjective) are not always per fectly clear. To illustrate, by an example:

“O pity, great Father of Light! (then I cried)

Thy creature, who fain would not wander from Thee!"

It might, perhaps, be a question here to which class of accessories we should refer the proposition, "Who fain would not wander from Thee!" It seems to us, that it is rather to be referred to the class of epithetic accessories. The same remark may be made of the accessories in the following compound proposition:

"'Twas thus by the glare of false science betrayed,

That leads, to bewilder; and dazzles, to blind,” &c.

(18) The distinction which we have been considering may be thought logical rather than grammatical, since in both kinds of accessory the form is exactly the same. We admit that, except in the use or omission of the determinatives, when the antecedent is a word susceptible of that limitation which a determinative indicates, the distinction is not exhibited by any thing in the structure of our language. But the distinction deserves the notice of the grammarian on account of the important variation of meaning sometimes involved, and it demands his notice in strict grammatical analysis, as frequently giving occasion either for the employment or the suppression of determinatives. A similar distinction may be traced in other accessories besides the adjective accessories.

It may be prescribed as an exercise to advanced students to furnish

* Whether Dr. Chalmers' mode of expression here is theologically and philosophically correct is another question. The form of the proposition would seem to imply that there may be a God to whom these accessories cannot be attributed; whereas the term God, in its highest sense and Christian acceptation, applies only to the One Great Being who "sitteth above," &c.

(17) Repeat the remark in reference to the lines of demarcation between these two kinds of accessories and illustrate by examples.

(18) Repeat the substance of the remark in reference to this distinction of accessories.