58 Mr. Sankey on the Philological Analysis 



it follows that e should be ranked amongst the conjunctions 

 copulative, and not among the disjunctives, as it has been 

 generally classed by grammarians and lexicographers. Indeed, 

 when we consider the very forced and inelegant construction 

 which, following the present rendering of this particle, is com- 

 monly given to sentences wherein it occurs, we might be apt 

 a priori to doubt whether its proper meaning had been yet 

 assigned. In truth, I believe there will be found but few 

 passages in which the sense would not be much improved by 

 taking $& as a connective, instead of an adversative. I do not, 

 however, deny, but that in some instances it may be used with 

 somewhat of a disjunctive signification. For example, where 

 it is put, as it were, in opposition to /u,sv. Even in these 

 instances, however, the meaning would not be much obscured 

 by rendering s as a copulative. Perhaps, in such cases, the 

 force of e might be very well given by the English yet, which 

 is itself derived from the Latin copulative et, and that from the 

 Greek ert, moreover. This view of s, as a connective, may 

 receive still further support from the consideration that this 

 particle is closely allied in sensible character to the copulative 

 re, the difference lying solely in the interchangeable letters 

 and T. Now rs unquestionably signifies and, the same as 

 xat, with which also it is frequently used, xai being put in the 

 former member of a connected sentence, whilst rs occupies the 

 latter. But s itself is also sometimes used in the same manner 

 after xai. Indeed, in most of those instances in which TE is 

 used, it will be found that &e, according to the laws of enun- 

 ciation, would necessarily be pronounced TE, the being changed 

 into r, as occurring after v or a. It is true indeed that s is 

 sometimes found following after <r, but then in such cases the 

 a must be pronounced like our z. 



In close connection with this part of our subject, we shall 

 take an analytical view of verbals in TEOV, which will afford us 

 a still further confirmation of the correctness of the opinion 

 which we have advanced respecting the particles s and rs. 

 Now the force of this termination TEOV is evidently that of 

 necessity , what must -be: TEOV is, therefore, clearly sov, the 

 being, on account of the euphony, changed into T. The same 

 is further manifest from the Latin gerund in dum, which 



