The conjunction or is frequently followed by else, as nor is by yet. Else is contracted from the Latin alias. The simple connectives both, and, are opposed to the simple disjunctives either, or, and neither, nor. As either, or, though pronouns, are used conjunctionally, so is both, though a pronoun, employed in the same manner, and therefore converted into a real conjunction.

But belongs to that class of conjunctions termed the adversative absolute, in which a positive and a negative are both asserted. An instance of this occurs in Milton, who repudiates the conjunction but in application to different kinds of opposition in the same sentence,

"Virtue may be assailed but never hurt;

But evil on itself shall back recoil,

And mix no more with goodness."

It is here positively asserted that virtue may be assailed; and it is negatively asserted that virtue cannot be hurt. It is negatively asserted that virtue cannot be hurt; and positively asserted that evil shall recoil on itself; that is, shall be hurt.

Than and as are termed adversatives of comparison; than implying superiority, as indicating equality. These conjunctions, having a relative force, must be preceded by some word as an antecedent, or by some inflection which has the force of an antecedent. "Solomon was wiser than Socrates." Here the comparative termination er renders the word wiser the antecedent of the relative than. Cicero was not so great an orator as Demosthenes." In this sentence so serves as an antecedent to its relative as. When the antecedent consists of several words, they are commonly called adverbs, because they modify an adjective or another adverb. The relatives are by many grammarians improperly called adverbs, for they

plainly connect sentences. whether the same conjunction answers one or several purposes. So we use as with the force of a causal conjunction, or a relative conjunction, or of the antecedent to such relative, as in the sentence, "Cæsar was as brave as Alexander."

It is merely a matter of idiom

Unless was originally on less that, a phrase adopted as a literal translation of the French phrase à moins que : "remembre that charitie is not perfect onles that it be burninge." In the old Scottish dialect the phrase less than was used instead of our modern unless.

Except is evidently the imperative mode of a verb used conjunctionally, and is equivalent to unless, for which it may be substituted without affecting the sense. We may say, "Troy will be taken unless, or except the Palladium be preserved."

Without is used conjunctionally in the same sense as except. But if the rather is used by old English authors with the same signification.

Though, or although, is termed by Harris an inadequate adversative uniting two sentences, one of which states an event or circumstance, and the other states another event or circumstance as inadequate to prevent the former.

Troy will be taken although Hector defend it;" where the defence of Troy, although defended by Hector, is inadequate to prevent its capture. The same conjunction is used, and by a just analogy, to mark an apparent incongruity of qualities, where the possession of the one does not preclude the existence of the other-as, "though deep yet clear; though gentle yet not dull."

Yet and still are conjunctions used in English as relatives to the antecedent adversatives though and suppose, &c.

"Though Birnam wood be come to Dunsinane,

Yet will I try the last."-Shakspeare.

In this example yet is used as a conjunction, and means, "at this time;" after Birnam wood has come to Dunsinane, and when no hope can arise from resistance, I will nevertheless resist.

As yet refers primarily to time, so still refers primarily to place, but secondarily to time. As a conjunction, still is manifestly the adverb so employed, and the adverb is derived from the adjective.

There is another class of conjunctions which Harris terms adverbial conjunctions, because they participate the properties both of adverbs and conjunctions; of conjunctions, as they conjoin sentences; of adverbs, as they clearly denote the attributes of time and place. They are when, where, whence, whither, whenever, wherever, &c.

There are instances in which occur pleonasms and cumulations of conjunctions. These occur in all languages, and therefore clearly arise out of principles common to the human mind. They originate in hasty and inconsiderate forms of speech, generally in the first formation of a language.

But cumulation is not always redundancy. In the sentence beginning thus, "But nevertheless if," the conjunction but connects it with what goes before, and if with some subsequent sentence, and the word nevertheless alone may be considered redundant; and yet not strictly so, since it adds great force and emphasis to the conjunction but.

This cumulation of conjunctions is frequent in the

Greek language.

INTERJECTIONS.

An interjection is a word expressing a sudden and

strong emotion of the mind, generally a sudden impulse of feeling. Though the interjection does not assert, it may be connected with a sentence, as one subordinate sentence is coupled with another in a larger sentence. For example, "O! that I had wings like a dove !', "Oh! that this too, too solid flesh would melt!" expressions equivalent in meaning to "I wish or desire," &c.

"The brutish inarticulate interjection," says Horne Tooke, "which has nothing to do with speech, and is only the miserable refuge of the speechless, has been permitted, because beautiful and gaudy, to usurp a place among words." This assertion, penned by a man of letters, is extraordinary and ridiculous. How can a class of words be at once beautiful, gaudy, brutish, and inarticulate ? "He is a miserable grammarian," says Sir John Stoddart, "who affects to disregard the numerous interjections and interjectional phrases which give such force, tenderness, variety, and truth to the words of the rhetorician and poet, and contribute so much toward rendering language an exact picture of the human mind.”

It is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish the interjections grammatically into classes, having more or less distinctness of conception attached to them. But we may perceive something like an ascending gradation from that which is but just above mechanical impulse, to that which is but just below the assertion of a proposition, in the interjections O! euge! fie! hush! hurrah! alas! bravo! &c. We have interjectional words flowing from the gentler movements of the mind, to the more violent kinds and degrees of feeling, passion, or sentiment.

Interjectional phrases occur in the daily conversation of particular classes of men; they in time become habitual,

F

they are abbreviated, contracted, corrupted, until they remain in language as mere words,—with little more articulation or distinction of meaning than the other interjections which are the effect of mere natural impulse. Hence the interjection, like the adverb, preposition, or conjunction, may often be traced to its origin in the verb

or noun.

The emotions expressed by interjections and interjectional phrases may be considered as of three kinds,-the impulse which arises from strong passions, from tender emotions, from particular objects or events :-The interjections expressive of the strongest passions,—as terror, fear, pain, sorrow, hatred, eager desire, warm affections, and enthusiastic joy.

Harrow! used by Chaucer, was used to denote a strong feeling of horror, or a want of help. Ah! Oh! denote pain, sorrow, or surprise; sometimes compassion and complaint. Ah me! is an interjectional phrase. Alas! is derived from the French helas! which is a corruption of the Italian ahi lasso! ah! weary! something equivalent to the Scotch interjectional phrase, "weary fa' you Duncan Gray." Woe is me! woe worth! and Scotch wae's me! wae's my heart! are interjections of grief.

Fie! implies contempt and hatred. It is related to foh! and faugh! which express dislike and abhorrence. When any word expressing emotion, be it noun, verb, or any other part of speech, is thrown into a sentence without connection, and does not enter into grammatical construction with the other members of the sentence, it may not improperly be called an interjection. Thus the furious clamour of the Jews, rendered in our translation, “Away with him! away with him!" is really an interjection,