Whenever, then, the infinitive phrase has this objective reference, it must be attached to the object, or, in other words, to the logical agent term. In case, however, its reference is to a subjective term as the logical agent, as in the example,

"I wish to go."

it is proper to attach it, as in the diagram in question, to the predicate, for the relation of that predicate, being to the subject, the force of the infinitive attached goes with it to the subject as also the logical agent of the infinitive, the two involving a species of two-fold affirmation of the same agent, in one part, direct, and in the other, incidental.

4. ATTACHMENT OF ADJUNCTS OF RELATIVE AND AUXILIARY

TERMS.

Fourth. The last case to which we shall refer under this head, involves an equally grave error in the analysis of the circumstantial relatives, the adverbial preposition and conjunction. It is exemplified in the words almost and not in the following diagrams :

CORRECTION AND DEMONSTRATION.

Now, with regard to these terms, a rigid analysis shows them to be alike in several leading characteristics; they both introduce adjunct elements; both logically indicate the adjunct elements as adverbial; both clearly foreshadow a modification of a similar activity; and as involving relativity, are susceptible of degrees indefinite, as in the forms towards, almost to, quite to, even to, not to, and something as, almost as, just as, even as, not as; and both, under certain circumstances, as in the sentences, He ran to and fro, and He ran as fast, become clearly proper adverbs.

PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE OFFICES.

Now, no principle is any more clearly settled in logical analysis, or is productive of more important results in classification or construction, than that simple elements may possess a two-fold, and even a three-fold nature, or office work, the leading characteristic, or office-work, being distinctly grammatical, and the others being either semi-grammatical or purely logical. Indeed, there is not a single part of speech that may not exhibit this complex functional nature.

CONSEQUENT DIVERSITY OF RELATION AND MODIFICATION.

Out of this two-fold nature, grows the fact that these double elements may, not only perform several diverse offices, but they may also be subjected to diverse modifi

cations. Thus, in the following example, the participle scaling is, on the one hand, relative and adjective, as introducing and constituting the leading part of the modifier, and on the other, is a principal element and verb, as governing the object peak ;

the participle having been, as being on the one hand substantive, is modified by the possessive specifying adjective his; and on the other, as being verbal, is modified by the proper adverb really.

APPLICATION TO THE ELEMENTS IN QUESTION.

Now the participle in these two instances is no more adjective verb or substantive verb, than is to, in the phrase almost to Boston, an adverbial preposition, or as, in the proposition, Not as the conqueror comes, an adverbial conjunction. The Grammar admits the first, and the last is substantially parallel. If now, the participle, or indeed any double element, may be treated according to its two-fold office, why not these two elements,—in other words, why may not to, on its adverbial side, be modified by the adverb almost, which clearly limits its fullness as to direction; and as, on its adverbial side, be modified by the adverb not, which as clearly restricts it as to the manner?

The conclusion is, then, irresistible, that almost is strictly a relative adjunct, and should be attached to to alone; and that not is an auxiliary adjunct, and should be attached only to as, as in the following examples; see not, only, and not.

This method of attaching this class of adjuncts will be found as wide-spread in its application, as it is beautiful in its philosophy.

V.-Error in Composition.

1. DOUBLE SUBSTANTIVE FIGURES.

Fifthly. In one important case, the composition of a double substantive figure is noticeable as nondescript and absurd. It will be seen in the object in the following diagram:

* This form, it will be seen, does away with the necessity for the general figure represented by the dotted line in the original diagram, the objectionable character of which has been elsewhere shown.

According to the rules for the form and attachment of objective figures, they should be complete ellipses, and should be attached to the right extremity of the predicate or subsequent figure, as the case may be. Clearly, then, the proper diagram for the example in question should be this,

In this the object figure, both conforms to the rules, and indicates the logical identity of the two objects.

2. OF COMPOUND PREDICATE FIGURES.

Secondly. Several irregular instances of erroneous drawing occur, as in the following:

In this the compound nature of the predicate, in its auxiliary section, is not indicated, and the conjunction is not placed between the parts to be connected; namely, lift and rejoice. The student will, however, be able to correct this for himself, by referring to the predicate figure for waxed deadly and chill; see the example on page 58.