same thing wearies us; labour fatigues us. A man is weary with standing, he is fatigued with walking.

To abhor, to detest. To abhor, imports, simply, strong dislike; to detest, imports likewise strong disapprobation. I abhor being in debt; I detest treachery.

To invent, to discover. We invent things which are new; we discover what has been hidden. Galilæo invented the telescope; Harvey discover-. ed the circulation of the blood.

Entire, complete. A thing is entire, when it wants none of its parts; complete, when it wants none of the appendages which belong to it. A man may occupy an entire house, though he has not one complete apartment.

Tranquillity, peace, calm. Tranquillity signi fies a situation free from trouble, considered in itself: peace, the same situation, with respect to any causes which might interrupt it; calm, with respect to a disturbed situation going before, or following it. A good man enjoys tranquillity in himself; peace with others; and calm after the storm.

Enough, sufficient. Enough relates to the quantity which we wish to have of any thing. Sufficient relates to the use that is to be made of it. Hence, enough commonly signifies a greater quantity than sufficient does. The covetous man never has enough, though he has what is sufficient for nature.

These are a few, among many, instances of words in our language, which, by careless writers, are apt to be mistaken for synonymous. The more the distinction in the meaning of such words is weighed and attended to, the more

accurately and forcibly shall we speak and write.

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, it is impossible that a work composed of such periods can be read with pleasure, or even with profit. But, by an 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 discover where it lies, and are able to correct it.

The properties most essential to a perfect sentence seem to be the four following:-1, Clearness and precision; 2. Unity; 3. Strength; 4. Harmony.

Ambiguity is opposed to clearness and precision, 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 leading rule in the arrangement of our sentences is, that the words or members most nearly related should be placed in the sentence as near to each other as possible, so as to make their mutual relation clearly appear. This rule is too frequently negected, even by good writers. A few instances

will show both its importance and its applica tion.

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 Mr. Addison, " I do not only mean the bulk of "any single object, but the largeness of a whole "view." Here the situation of the adverb only renders it a limitation of the following word, mean. "I do not only mean."-The question may then be asked, What, does he more than mean? Had it been placed after bulk, still it would have been improperly situated; for it might then be asked, What is meant besides the bulk? Is it the colour, or any other property? Its proper place is, certainly, 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 poly"theism, 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." These kind of inaccuracies may have no material inconvenience in conversation, because the tone and emphasis used in pronouncing them generally serve to show their reference, and to make the meaning perspicuous: but in writing, where a person speaks to the eye, and

T

not to the ear, he ought to be more accurate; and should so connect those adverbs with the words which 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 art to place it in such a manner as to divest it of all ambiguity. For instance, "Are these designs," says Lord Bolingbroke, Dissert. on Parties, Ded. "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 words, “in any circum"stances, in any situation," are connected with "a man born in Britain, in any circumstances or situation," or with that man's " avowing his designs, in any circumstances, or situation, "into which he may be brought?" If the latter, as seems most likely, was intended to be the meaning, the arrangement ought to have been in this form: "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 attentive care is requisite to the proper disposition of the relative pronouns, who, which, what, whose; and of all those particles which express the connection of the parts of speech with one another. Since all reasoning depends upon this connection, we cannot be too accurate with regard to it. A trifling error may obscure the meaning of the whole sentence; and even where the meaning is apparent, yet where these relative particles are misplaced, we always find something awkward and disjointed in the structure of the period. The following

passage in Bishop Sherlock's Sermons (vol. 2. serm. 15) will exemplify these observations: "It is folly to pretend to arm ourselves against "the accidents of life, by heaping up treasures, "which nothing can protect us against, but the "good providence of our Heavenly Father. Which always refers grammatically to the immediately preceding substantive, which here is, "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, which nothing can pro"tect us against but the good providence of our "Heavenly Father."

68

We now proceed to the second quality of a well-arranged sentence, which we termed its Unity. This is an indispensable property. The very nature of a sentence implies one proposition to be expressed. It may consist, indeed, of parts; but these parts must be so intimately knit together, as to make the impression upon the mind of one object, not of many.

Το preserve this unity, we must first observe, that, during the course of the sentence, the scene 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." Here, though the objects are sufficiently connected, yet by this mode of representation, by shifting so often the