430 
Universal they speak little.” In this paraphrase we shall have an 
Grammer. intelligent analysis of the relative! 
¥ In sentences thus subjoined, the relative may some- 
times be the nominative, as in the examples which we 
have given ; or it may be the accusative; or it may be 
subjected to any other regimen competent to the noun. 
We may say, “ A man whom the world admires. “ A 
man whose veracity is unimpeached,” or “ A man of 
whom all are forced to speak well.” 
It is also to be remarked, that the noun to which 
such sentences or clauses are.subjoined, may occupy 
any place in the larger sentence that is competent to a 
noun ; it may form either part of the subject, or of the 
protien. We may either say, “ The man who loves 
is country deserves honour,” or “ the world respects 
Cato as a man who loved his country.” 
When we attempt to reduce sentences to a precise and 
uniform theory, the following question will arise. Is 
the verb when thus sibjoined: by means of the relative, 
actually used for assertion? or is it deprived of this power 
by the relative? and ought the indicative of the verb 
to be on that account considered as applicable to other 
purposes besides assertion? It seems unscientific to 
maintain that the verb, separately considered, performs 
in this instance a different office, since the whole 
change of application is preduced by the power of the 
relative. It would be most advantageous to consider 
the office performed by it in real assertions and in sub- 
junctions of this kind as possessing some character in 
common, and to consider the modifications to which it 
is liable as consisting in the differences of the nomina- 
tives. If to any of our readers there should seem to 
be a gap in this part of our theory, we should be happy 
to have the means of supplying it pointed out. But to 
us there appears to be no impropriety in calling this 
general character by the name of assertion. An asser- 
tion may be first made, and may afterwards be men- 
tioned for the sake of reference. An assertion may be 
used as the definition of an object. Of this object we 
may speak either by a single name, or by using the 
terms of the definition introduced by the relative 
“which.” It seems rather incongruous to maintain 
that the definition in that case loses its character of 
assertion. The most that can be said is, that its office 
has been previously performed, and that it is now in 
this respect dormant. Its adaptation to that original 
application, even in the present connection, is certainly 
still apparent. 
It is worthy of remark, that the place of a sentence 
thus subjoined to a noun often admits of being supplied 
by anoun in the genitive, or by an adjective. The mean- 
ing expressed by the phrase, “ A man who is capable 
of hypocrisy,” may be expressed by the phrase, “ A 
hypocritical man ;” therefore a new theoretic question 
arises, does the adjective “ hypocritical” imply the co- 
pula used in assertion? Nay, the whole meaning may 
be condensed into a single noun. Instead of either of 
the preceding phrases, we may say, “ A hypocrite is 
not to be trusted.””_ Does the noun “hypocrite” im- 
ply an assertion? Then it will follow, that the office of 
assertion is not peculiar to the verb, but is included in 
the noun itself. This is so far true, that every noun is 
susceptible of a definition containing the indicative or 
asserting form of the verb. A noun signifying a com- 
pound idea may be defined by an enumeration of the 
parts of which that idea consists. A noun signifying 
a simple idea may be defined by pointing out the rela- 
tion of that idea to various others, whether by resem- 
blance, connection, or contrast. ‘ 
Varieties in 
the applica- 
tion of the 
relative, 
Query on 
the nature 
of assertions. 
All uses of 
the indica- 
tive may be 
denomina- 
ted asser- 
tion, 
Substitutes 
for a sen- 
tence as in- 
troduced by 
the relative. 
1 
GRAMMAR. 
In the progress of human. knowledge, combina. U 
i diceictions of ideas are ras which are 
at first expressed in propositions and afterwards iy 
single words; es a = are not understood ti 
the processes ought whi ve origin to them, 
atl wich were et Be am by asserting proposi- “¢s 
tions, are comprehi Condensed signs, however, 
are not attached to all the results of these mental. pro- 
cesses. This is only done when they are to be fre- 
uently referred to or treated as the chief subjects of 
Tecone When only occasionally mentioned, they 
J Instead of 
a single word, we on some occasions use a noun with 
an adjective, as “an honest man,” ‘a faithful servant ;” 
or a noun governing another in the genitive, as “a 
man of consequence,” ‘‘ a man of probity,” “a mem- 
ber of parliament.” Sometimes these modes of annexa~ 
tion are accumulated, as, “ a wealthy citizen of Lon- 
don,” “aman of the highest reputation,” On other 
occasions, when the combination of ideas is less fami- 
liar, we describe an object by attaching to a noun are» 
gular sentence by means of the relative, thus; “aman 
who has, in a certain circle, the highest character for 
understanding.” eee 
Sometimes the relative is employed to introduce a sen- F. 
tence which is not intended to form a descriptive defi- 
nition of any object, but part of a narrative conveying 
new information ; as, ‘ Peter, who had all the time /is- 
tened to my words, now presented himself before me.” 
This has the same meaning with two sentences connect- ~ 
ed by the conjunction “ and,” viz. “ Peter had all the 
time listened to my words, and now ted himself 
before me.” - The obliquity which this use of the re- 
lative produces is but dig t, and promotes an elegant 
variety. of diction, 
are expressed in a more circuitous manner. 
2. The Participle. 
In the use of the participle we have a method of The p 
subjoining a descriptive sentence to the noun, which, 
with to briefness and extent of regimen, is in- for 
termediate betwixt the use of the adjective, or of the “™ 
nitive case, and that of the relative. It resembles 
See adjective in the manner in which it is introduced, 
but always follows the particular verb to which it be- 
longs in the regimen which it possesses as introduc- 
tory to other words. Hence it is capable of annexing 
a train of ideas tothe noun. We say “ a case bearing 
an analogy te the preceding ;” “ aman of 
fine sensibility ;” and, ina mathematical theorem, “the 
square of the side of a right angled triangle subtending 
the right angle is equal to the sum of the squares of 
the other two.” 5 Z 
After the remarks which we have made on the pos- Ana 
sibility of resolving the meaning of any noun into a the pi 
a definition, we can have little difficulty with the par- 
ticiple. It is obviously resolvable into an indicative 
sentence introduced by the relative: “* A man walking” 
is resolvable into “ a man who walks.” 
A designation formed by the annexation of the par- 
ticiple to a noun, differs from the use of a noun which 
contains the whole meaning, by approaching nearer to 
the form of assertion. It prominently exhibits the ana- 
lysis of that meaning which in the corresponding noun 
is more condensed, and, like the relative with thein 1i- 
cative mood, it enables us to extend considerably our 
specifications, ee ¥ 
The participle may, like the relative and. the indica- | 74 
tive of the verb, be used for immediate assertion, as the 
; 
ra 
t 
. 
t 
