OBS. 9.—­To make this matter more clear, it may be proper to observe further, that what I call the order of the sense, is not always that order of the words which is fittest to express the sense of a whole period; and that the true antecedent is that word to which the preposition, and its object would naturally be subjoined, were there nothing to interfere with such an arrangement.  In practice it often happens, that the preposition and its object cannot be placed immediately after the word on which 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.