There are seeming exceptions, however, to this description, the nature of which ought to be understood. They are all of one kind; they all belong to those cases of Predication, in which either the subject or the predicate consists of enumerated particulars; and in which the Conjunction is employed to mark the enumeration. Thus we say, "Four, and four, and two, are ten." Here the _subject_ of the predication consists of three enumerated particulars, and the conjunction seems to connect words, and not predications. In like manner, we say, "His bag was full of hares, and pheasants, and partridges." In this last case, the _predicate_ is composed of enumerated particulars. In these instances, the words called conjunctions, appear to perform the business of prepositions, in joining _words_: and in fact, they may be supplied by prepositions. Thus, instead of "four, and four, and two, are ten," we may say "four, with four, with two, are ten:" and, in the same way, "His bag was full of hares, and pheasants, and partridges," may be put "full of hares, with pheasants, with partridges." And nothing can be more simple than such a variety in the use of such words. {213} _With_ means _join_; _and_ means _add_.[62] These are words of the same kind, and the same import; and nothing but use has appropriated the one to the joining of words rather than predications, the other to the joining of predications rather than words. [Findlater's footnote 62: This is according to Tooke's etymology, who traces _and_ to an Ang. Sax. verb _anan_, to add. Unfortunately, Anglo-Saxon scholars deny that there is such a verb. The nearest to it is _unnan_, which means, however, merely "to wish well to," "to favour." No satisfactory account has been given of _and_, but the analogy of other conjunctions would connect it with a demonstrative root. J. Grimm is inclined to consider it as a nasalised form of the Lat. _et_; which in its turn may be an inversion of Greek [Greek: ti\], just as _ac_, is of [Greek: kai\]. All conjunctions are essentially adverbs, and derive their connective power from their adverbial meaning. This is well seen in _also_, the radical meaning of which is "all (quite) in that (the same) way." Most of the adverbs used as conjunctions are obviously oblique cases of pronouns; so, as, than, when, where, tum, ubi, quam, quum. In Gothic, _jah_, (Old Ger. _ja_, Finnish _ja_; of the same origin as Eng. _yes_) takes the place of _and_, and means "in that or the same (manner)." The Gr. [Greek: kai\] and the Lat. que, "and," are similarly oblique cases from the root _ka_, and equivalent to "in which or that (manner)." The identity of manner or circumstance constitutes the mental bond. It is easy to see how a preposition used adverbially and expressing proximity, distance, or other relative position, would connect predications or ideas; _e.g._ "_After_ he had rested a little, he began again."--_F._]