The Anglo-Saxons recognized the resemblance in office between the adjective and the adverb; for as they termed the first Namer gereɲa, the noun's companion, so they termed the adverb ponder gerena, the verb's companion, and a better definition of it could hardly be given.

Adverbs are divided by grammarians into those of 1. Number: as once, &c.

2. Order: as first, &c.

3. Place: as here, there, &c.
4. Time: as now, hereafter, &c.
5. Quantity: as enough, &c.

6. Quality: as wisely, charitably, &c.
7. Doubt: as perhaps, &c.
8. Affirmation: as yes, &c.
9. Negation as no, not, &c.
10. Interrogation: as how, why, &c.
11. Comparison: as almost, alike, &c.

Some adjectives are occasionally used as adverbs; as, This is BETTER done than the last.

Many adverbs are compared like adjectives, as soon, sooner, soonest-far, farther, farthest-very, verier, veriest. Those ending in ly are usually compared by means of the words more and most; which are the comparative and superlative of much.

Except, from its government of a case, would perhaps have some claim to rank as a preposition, but it appears more properly a contraction of the active participle of a verb transitive; for EXCEPTING him is identical in sense with EXCEPT him.

Prepositions are often used in compounding verbs, in order to modify the sense; and, not unfrequently, Latin prepositions, even though the verb may not be derived from the Latin, as interweave, interchange; and these are inseparable under any circumstances: but in some cases when the preposition is English, it is movable, as in the German, although not quite to the same extent, as

"Come, Camillo,

I will respect thee as a father, if
Thou bearst my life off hence-

"I can no other answer make, but, thanks

And thanks, and ever thanks; and oft good terms
Are shuffled off with such uncurrent pay.

"Where such things here, as we do speak about?"

"I

Have uttered truth, which if you seek to prove,
I dare not stand by:-

Of the same kind are run after, call in, and many more which will readily occur to every one's recollection. Some verbs have a different sense even, when given with

the same preposition, according as it is separable or notthus, to overshoot and to shoot over, have a very different signification, and the same may be observed of understand and stand under; overlook and look over; outrun and run out, &c. A few verbs, compounded thus with prepositions, follow the rule of the German exactly; namely, the preposition is joined to the beginning of the participle, but is separated and placed after in the tenses. Thus, I MENTIONED the circumstance BEFORE―becomes in the participle the BEFORE MENTIONED circumstance.

VIII.

CONJUNCTION.

Conjunctions are divided into

1. COPULATIVE, which connect and carry on the meaning through the limbs of a sentence, as I could not go BECAUSE I was unwell, AND THEREFORE he promised to come to

me.

2. DISJUNCTIVE, which express some degree of opposition between the parts they connect; as I would have gone THOUGH I was unwell, BUT he was not at home.

It must be observed with regard to these last parts of speech, that many words according to their meaning will be adverbs, prepositions, or conjunctions: thus, for, when put transitively, is a preposition; as, it is not FOR him, i. e., it is not to be his property, but, I went FOR he called me, signifies, because he called me, and for is then a conjunction. In the phrase, I am then to conclude that are determined; then is a conjunction, but in the following passage it becomes an adverb of time: "Margaret had been to him a purely ideal object during the years of his youth; death had again rendered her such. Imagination had beautified and idolized her then; faith sanctified and glorified her now."*

* Southey.

you

IX.

INTERJECTION.

The interjections in English are few ;-the nation is but little given to exclamation;-Oh! Ah! and Alas! form nearly the sum of them. Some imperative modes of verbs are used something in the manner of an interjection, as, See! Behold! and Hail! which last is from a Saxon verb, and is a wish of health to the person so addressed. Lo! is probably an abbreviation of look! as, lo'ye is to be found in old writers, and Hark! is from Hearken. The rest are but inarticulate expressions of impatience or doubt, which have puzzled orthographers to spell-as, pish! or pshaw! or bah! or um! or hum! or hm, and are not worth farther notice.

SYNTAX.

THIS word, derived from the Greek currağı, which signifies an orderly arrangement together, sufficiently explains the object of all those rules of grammar which are classed under this head. It is here that the peculiarities of a language, or, in other words, its idioms are to be found; and the modifications which every nation is wont to make of the universal rules, constitute what is called the genius of the language. It is the fault of English writers very generally that they do not sufficiently attend to this; and the consequence is that it is rare to find a racy idiomatic style. The sounding march of the Latin periods charms the ear of the scholar, and he tries to assimilate his own language to that which he has long studied and admired: but the want of distinctive terminations to many of the cases of nouns, renders this a vain attempt; and if we would write perspicuously, and at the same time with a force which shall impress itself on the memory, we must use the tools which our rude forefathers left us; we must write, as we speak,-our mother tongue.

THE THREE CONCORDS.

RULE I.

Concord of the Verb with its Nominative.

The peculiarity of the English on this point, consists in its uniform arrangement of the nominative before the verb; for as the accusative of the substantive has no especial termination, it would be impossible to make a sentence perspicuous if any other arrangement were adopted. The arrangement, therefore, made use of by some modern writers by which the nominative is displaced, is bad, and in proof of this, we may observe that it is never so used in common speech. Peter was more confident than WAS JOHN, will never be a mode of expression adopted in conversation, nor has it ever been so by the great masters of our language. Take, for example, Southey, in that most idiomatic of all his writings, "The Doctor,"

"To those who are acquainted with the history of Grandgousier's royal family, I need not explain what that purpose was."-Now this sentence would have been despoiled of its genuine English-ness had it been written what was that purpose."-Therefore, although an ear accustomed to the roundness of the Latin period, may shrink from a small word at the end of a sentence, if the writer would be English in his style, (and if he be not it is not a good style,) he must be content to follow his wise forefathers in this, as well as in trial by jury, and many other things which we have not yet found it easy to amend.

It is difficult always to believe that an arrangement of language which we are daily hearing, is the true and elegant one: and yet if, in manner and in dress, simplicity and ease are synonymous with elegance, why should we wonder that the same should be the case with language? I will choose two sentences from a popular writer* to exemplify both the faulty and the idiomatic arrangement

* Sir E. Bulwer Lytton.