still less of the sentiment, I became more disgusted with Schiller and all his tribe, than even with the sour-crout.

Added years, and more experience, have induced me to look upon those little meetings as exceedingly suggestive. Here were a people of a comparatively low rank in the social scale, with a training in the schools of their own country no higher than our common schools are supposed to furnish, and yet able to discuss intelligently, appreciatingly, even lovingly, the beauties of Schiller and other German poets.

(To be concluded in next number.)

ENGLISH GRAMMAR.

THE CLAUSE-FORM.

NO. 6.

THE DEMONSTRATIVE CLAUSE.

WE saw, in our last article, that this sentence is the largest element of discourse, and consequently should be first considered in the study of language; we saw likewise that the sentence contains two indispensable elements, subject and predicate, and that such a relation exists between the one and the other, that they cannot be used interchangeably, and that consequently we can always easily distinguish the subject from the predicate.

From what was said, also, it is evident that what we term the communication of thought, consists in building up in the mind of the hearer, out of material which constitutes the common stock of knowledge, expressed always by the common abstract terms of our language, a conception similar to the conception in the mind of the speaker. The hearer's knowledge is, so to speak, the building material, the lumber, bricks, or mortar. The speaker is the builder. If the material be limited in quantity or in kind, the builder, however skilful, will have small success. There is little to build with. On the other hand, if the builder be wanting in skill, in intelligence, or in acquaintance with his work, however abundant the material, he will have little success. If, however, the building material be abundant, and the speaker a skilful architect, he will erect in the mind of his hearer a mental structure that shall, in

every instance, be the exact image of his own conception; and if he has besides a cultivated taste, and a knowledge of the best methods of embodying it in form, he may, if he choose, make the structure already built and perfected, likewise beautiful with grace and ornament. Thus a sentence-maker is a thought-builder, — an architect of conceptions The plan or model is furnished him. It is the conception already in his own mind. His material is so many of the verbal symbols that constitute the English tongue, as his hearer understands. His success consists in using what material he has, in such a way as to reproduce most perfectly his own thoughts.

From what has been said, it is easy to see why it is difficult to talk intelligibly to a promiscuous audience, representing all degrees of acquirement, and especially why it is difficult to discourse to children.

We pass now from the consideration of the sentence, to the investigation of the next largest grammatical element, viz., the clause. Now, all the grammatical elements used in the structure of a sentence may be divided into three classes. These, being merely verbal forms for the expression of thought, rather than forms of thought itself, we will call word-forms, phrase-forms, and clause forms. Passing for the present the word-forms and the phrase-forms, we will consider the most important of these viz., the clause-form.

And, first, let us have a definite conception of what we are to understand by a clause-form. I would say, then, that a clauseform, as we are now to understand it, is simply a dependent sentence; that is, dependent in this sense, that of itself it does not make complete sense. In all other essentials, it is like the sentence. We already understand the nature of a sentence, hence we may at once understand the general character of a clause-form. Like the sentence, it has a subject and a predicate; and the subject likewise holds the same logical relation to the predicate, as in the case of the sentence. The specific difference is, as we have said, that the sentence-form expresses a complete, the clause-form an incomplete thought. Thus, "He will come," is a sentence form. "(Says) that he will come," is a clause-form.

Now we shall find on examination, that the clause-form, thus

defined, is one of the most important, and indeed one of the most interesting grammatical elements in our language; or, in fact, in any language, for all languages use constantly this grammatical organism or instrument for the expression of thoughts. And let me say, moreover, in this connection, that a thorough mastery of this element, in all its different grammatical forms and logical uses, will be the mastery of no small part of all that is desirable to be known in the syntactical structure of any language.

Let us, then, examine carefully this very beautiful organic struc ture in language.

We have, then, by way of beginning our investigations, the fol lowing expressions: "He saw that the sun was rising;" " he saw the sun (to) rise;" he saw the sun rising." Now, in the above, we have the same thought expressed in different ways, with only a slight modification in the nature of the thought itself. The simple fact expressed independently would take the sentence-form thus: "The sun rises"; expressed dependently, it may take any one of the three forms above. But it will be observed on examination, that in each of the three forms in question," that the sun was rising; ""the sun (to) rise;" and "the sun rising," there is a subject, viz., "the sun," and a predicate affirming something of that subject, viz., "was rising," "to rise," "rising." It is also evident that all these forms are equally predicative in force, in that they all equally affirm something of the subject. It is true they do not all affirm with precisely the same logical force. There is a shade of difference in the method, or if you please in the grammatical mood of the affirmation; but in every case there is affirmation. If the three were exact logical equivalents, two of them would long ago have become obsolete English, if indeed we can suppose them ever to have existed at all, for language, like nature, never preserves any useless material. They differ in logical force about as much as many individual words which we term synonyms differ from one another,synonyms have not the same, but analogous significations, • So these three forms of expression express not precisely the same, but analogous thoughts.

If it be said that in the last form, "the sun rising," the predi cation is, substantially, an adjective element and not a predicative, we

reply, that although it may possess some adjective element features, its predicative character is the essential and leading one, as will be evident if we make the participle purely adjective in force. Thus, "He saw the rising sun." Assuredly there is a vast difference in the thought, botween "(saw) the sun rising," and "(saw) the rising sun;" or between "(saw) a machine mowing," and (saw) a mowing machine.

Now, since each of these three expressions in the nature of its organic structure comes under our definition of a clause-form, we must include them all under that head; and inasmuch as they all express thoughts synonymous, or at least cognate, and can often be used interchangeably with only a slight modification of sense, we will call them cognate clause-forms.

Having now considered these three cognate clauses generally, and chiefly with reference to their relation to one another, we will study more closely the structure and peculiarities of each.

"Saw that the sun was rising," besides a subject and a predicate, contains a connective word, viz., that. Now, on examination, we shall find that this form of the cognate clauses is always introduced by this connective, or an equivalent for it, either expressed or clearly understood. In affirmative propositions it has no equiv alent, and is used invariably; but after words of fearing and caution, it has an equivalent in the word "lest," thus (" feared) lest (or, that) he would come." The word but, after words of doubting, is sometimes used in its place, but always improperly, and hence should be noticed only to be corrected, thus ("no doubt) but ye are the people," Job, 12, 2,— should be," that ye are the people"; and again, ("there is no question) but Milton had," etc., (Addison,) should be "that Milton had," etc.

Again, on the other hand, the connective "that" is sometimes used in the sense of " in order that," or "so that." When used thus, it is indeed the same word in point of form, but a different term entirely in point of force, and never introduces the cognate clause under consideration. Thus, note the difference in the following: "(Believed) that he might learn ;" here we have the simple connective "that" : "(Studied) that he might learn;" here "that" means " in order that,” and we have, in consequence, an entirely different

kind of clause. This difference is manifest, among other things, in the different functions performed by the two clauses, one being an objective, the other a modifying element.

Again, that is sometimes used in the sense of a relative pronoun, or a relative adverb; thus "the same man that (= whom) I saw," "Arrived at the same hour that (at which) you did." "It was in Boston that (= where) I saw him." In neither of these cases do we have the demonstrative clause. Now, the simple connective "that," the invariable prepositive of the clause in question, is peculiar and distinct in use and force from all the other subordinate connectives. It, or its only equivalent, lest, is the only subordinate connective, that can introduce a substantive clause. It therefore stands out prominently, among all the connective words, as a kind of regal conjunction. It likewise lays claim to no unimportant lineage, for it descended from no mere dumb connective, but from nothing less than a clever, gesticulating demonstrative pronoun, with forefinger ever up and pointing!

In our early English, clause-forms were rare. Sentence-forms were very largely used instead. Thus, in our translation of the Old Testament, what may be called the sentence-form of discourse prevails almost entirely. Thus "The Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death;'" for "That the man should be put to death." "And Balak said unto Baalim, What hast thou done unto me?" for "Balak asked Baalim what he had done unto him."

We find everywhere in old English, the direct or sentence-form of discourse largely prevailing. This method, however, was not chosen because of its greater energy and vividness, but because it was the only method. The oblique or clause-form of discourse was confined by the necessities of the language almost entirely to the use of the relative clause, and the use of this clause, even, was very much restricted.

66

The first modification of the regular sentence-form discourse, seems to have been in the use of the demonstrative pronoun that," with the objective sentence in apposition. Thus "(He said) that, viz, I will go." This, however, would soon be resolved into " (He said) that he would go." We sometimes find a construction somewhat similar to this intermediate construction between