hich they
depend, and which they would naturally follow. For example: "She hates the
means _by which_ she lives." That is, "She hates the means which she _lives
by_." Here we cannot say, "She hates the means she _lives by which_;" and
yet, in regard to the preposition _by_, this is really the order of the
sense. Again: "Though thou shouldest bray a fool _in a mortar among wheat
with a pestle_, yet will not his foolishness depart from him."--_Prov._,
xxvii, 23. Here is no transposition to affect our understanding of the
prepositions, yet there is a liability to error, because the words which
immediately precede some of them, are not their true antecedents: the text
does not really speak of "_a mortar among wheat_" or of "_wheat with a
pestle_." To what then are the _mortar_, the _wheat_, and the _pestle_, to
be mentally subjoined? If all of them, to any one thing, it must be to the
_action_ suggested by the verb _bray_, and not to its object _fool_; for
the text does not speak of "_a fool with a pestle_," though it does _seem_
to speak of "_a fool in a mortar_, and _among wheat_." Indeed, in this
instance, as in many others, the verb and its object are so closely
associated that it makes but little difference in regard to the sense,
whether you take both of them together, or either of them separately, as
the antecedent to the preposition. But, as the instrument of an action is
with the agent rather than with the object, if you will have the
substantives alone for antecedents, the natural order of the sense must be
supposed to be this: "Though _thou with_ a pestle shouldest bray a, _fool
in_ a mortar [and] _among_ wheat, yet will not his _foolishness from_ him
depart." This gives to each of the prepositions an antecedent different
from that which I should assign. Sanborn observes, "There seem to be _two
kinds_ of relation expressed by prepositions,--an _existing_ and a
_connecting_ relation."--_Analyt. Gram._, p. 225. The latter, he adds, "_is
the most important_."--_Ib._, p. 226. But it is the former that admits
nothing but _nouns_ for antecedents. Others besides Harris may have adopted
this notion, but I have never been one of the number, though a certain
author scruples not to charge the error upon me. See _O. B Peirce's Gram._,
p. 165.

OBS. 10.--It is a very common error among grammarians, and the source of
innumerable discrepancies in doctrine, as well as one of the chief means of
maintaining their interminable dispu