How do pride, and vanity differ? STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES. A PROPER Construction of sentences is of such importance in every species of composition, that we cannot be too strict or minute in our attention to it. For, whatever be the subject, if the sentences be constructed in a clumsy, perplexed, or feeble manner, the work cannot be read with pleasure, nor even with profit. But by attention to the rules, which relate to this part of style, we acquire the habit of expressing ourselves with perspicuity and elegance; and, if a disorder happen to arise in some of our sentences, we immediately see where it lies, and are able to rectify it. The properties most essential to a perfect_sentence are the four following:-1. Clearness. 2. Unity. 3. Strength. 4. Harmony. Ambiguity is opposed to clearness, and arises from two causes; either from a wrong choice of words, or a wrong collocation of them. Of the choice of words; as far as regards perspicuity, we have already spoken. Of the collocation of them we are now to treat. From the nature of our language, a capital rule in the arrangement of our sentences is, that words or members most nearly related, should be placed as near to each other as possible, that their mutual relation may clearly appear. This rule is frequently neglected even by good writers. A few instances will show both its importance and application. In the position of adverbs, which are used to qualify the signification of something, which either precedes or follows them, a good deal of nicety is to be observed. By greatness," says Addison, "I do not only mean the bulk of any single object, but the largeness of a whole view." Here the place of the adverb only makes it limit the verb mean. "I do not only mean." 66 The question may then be asked, what does he more than mean? Had it been placed after bulk, still it would have been wrong, for it might then be asked, what is meant beside the bulk? Is it the colour or any other property? Its proper place is after the word object: By greatness I do not mean the bulk of any single object only;" for then, when it is asked, what does he mean more than the bulk of a single object? the answer comes out precisely as the author intends, "the largeness of a whole view." Theism," says Lord Shaftesbury, can only be opposed to polytheism or atheism." It may be asked then, is theism capable of nothing else except being opposed to polytheism or atheism? This is what the words literally mean through the improper collocation of only. He ought to have said, Theism can be opposed only to polytheism or atheism." Inaccuracies of this kind occasion little ambiguity in common discourse, because the tone and emphasis, used by the speaker, generally make the meaning perspicuous. But in writing, where a person speaks to the eye, he ought to be more accurate; and so to connect adverbs with the words they qualify, that his meaning cannot be mistaken on the first inspection. When a circumstance is interposed in the middle of a sentence, it sometimes requires attention to place it in such manner as to divest it of all ambiguity. For instance, "Are these designs," says Lord Bolingbroke, 66 which any man, who is born a Briton, in any circumstances, in any situation, ought to be ashamed or afraid to avow?" Here we are in doubt whether the phrases, in any circumstances, in any situation," be connected with ". a man born in Britain;" or with that man's "avowing his designs." If the latter, as seems most likely, was intended to be the meaning, the arrangement ought to be this, "are these designs, which any man, who is born a Briton, ought to be ashamed or afraid in any circumstances, in any situation to avow?" Still more attention is requisite to a proper disposi tion of the relative pronouns, who, which, what, whose and all those particles, which express the connexion of the parts of speech. As all reasoning depends upon this connexion, we cannot be too accurate with regard to it. A small error may obscure the meaning of a whole sentence; and even where the meaning is apparent, yet if these relatives be misplaced, we always find something awkward and disjointed in the structure of the period. The following passage in Bishop Sherlock's sermons, will exemplify these observations: "It is folly to pretend to arm ourselves against the accidents of life, by heaping up treasures, which nohing can protect us against but the good providence of our Heavenly Father." Which grammatically refers to the immediately preceding noun, which here treasures;" and this would convert the whole period into nonsense. The sentence should have been thus constructed: "It is folly to pretend, by heaping up treasures to arm ourselves against the accidents of life, against which, nothing can protect us but the good providence of our Heavenly Father." S We now proceed to the second quality of a well arranged sentence, which we termed its unity. This is a capital property. The very nature of a sentence implies one proposition to be expressed. It may consist of parts; but these parts must be so closely bound together, as to make an impression of one object only upon the mind. To preserve this unity, we must first observe, that during the course of the sentence, the subject should be changed as little as possible. There is generally in every sentence some person or thing, which is the governing word. This should be continued so, if possible, from the beginning to the end of it. Should a man express himself in this manner; "After we came to anchor, they put me on shore, where I was saluted by all my friends, who received me with the greatest kindness." Though the objects in this sentence are sufficently connected, yet, by shifting so often the subjet and the person, me, they, I, and who, they appear in so disunited a view, that the sense and conon are nearly lost. The sentence is restored to proper unity by constructing it thus; "Having e to anchor, they put me on shore, where I was i " saluted by all my friends, who received me with the greatest kindness." The second rule is, never crowd into one sentence ideas, which have so little connexion, that they might well be divided into two or more sentences. Violation of this rule never fails to displease a reader. Its effect indeed is so disgusting, that of the two it is the safest extreme, to err rather by too many short sentences, than by one that is overloaded and confused. The following sentence from a translation of Plutarch will justify this opinion: "Their march," says the author, speaking of the Greeks, "was through an uncultivated country, whose savage inhabitants fared hardly, having no other riches than a breed of lean sheep, whose flesh was rank and unsavoury, by reason of their continually feeding upon sea-fish." Here the subject is repeatedly changed. The march of the Greeks, the description of the inhabitants through whose country they passed, the account of their sheep, and the reason of their sheep being disagreeable food, make a jumble of objects slightly related to each other, which the reader cannot without considerable difficulty comprehend in one view. The third rule for preserving the unity of a sentence is, keep clear of parentheses in the middle of it. These may on some occasions have a spirited appearance, as prompted by a certain vivacity of thought, which can glance happily aside, as it is going along. But in general their effect is extremely bad; being a perplexed method of disposing of some thought, which a writer has not art enough to introduce in its proper place. It is needless to produce any instances, as they occur so frequently among incorrect writers. The fourth rule for the unity of a sentence is, bring it to a full and perfect close. It needs not to be observed, that an unfinished sentence is no sentence with respect to grammar. But sentences often occur, which are more than finished. When we have arrived at what we expected to be the conclusion; when we are come to the word, on which the mind is naturally led to rest; unexpectedly some circumstance is added, which ought to have been omitted, or disposed of elsewhere. Thus, for instance, in the following sentence from Sir William Temple, the adjection to the sen tence is entirely foreign to it. Speaking of Burnet's Theory of the Earth, and Fontenelle's Plurality of Worlds; "The first," says he, "could not end his learned treatise without a panegyric of modern learning in comparison of the ancient; and the other falls so grossly into the censure of the old poetry, and preference of the new, that I could not read either of these strains without some indignation; which no quality among men is so apt to raise in me, as self-sufficiency." The word indignation" concludes the sentence; for the last member is added after the proper close. What properties are most essential to a perfect sentence? What is a capital rule with respect to clearness? Give an example. What instance from Lord Bolingbroke? What is said of the words who, which, &c.? Mention an example. What is the first rule for preserving the unity of a sen tence? What instance, and how corrected? What is the second rule Mention an instance. What is the third rule? What is the fourth rule? What example? STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES. WE now proceed to the third quality of a correct sentence, which we termed strength. By this is meant such a disposition of the several words and members, as will exhibit the sense to the best advantage; as will render the impression, which the period is intended to make, most full and complete; and give every word and every member its due weight and force. To the production of this effect, perspicuity and unity are absolutely necessary; but more is requisite. For a sentence may be clear; it may also be compact, or have the requisite unity; and yet, by some unfavourable circumstances in the structure, it may fail in that |