The English particle 'but' exemplifies how a single particle can intimate several distinct relations… — John Locke

The English particle 'but' exemplifies how a single particle can intimate several distinct relations between propositions—such as stopping a discourse, limiting a sense, implying a suppressed alternative, marking direct opposition, or merely joining a syllogistic minor premise—showing that its function cannot be captured by a single traditional grammatical label like 'discretive conjunction'.

By John Locke, from An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

Key Arguments

Locke notes that '“But” is a particle, none more familiar in our language', and that grammarians think they explain it by saying 'it is a discretive conjunction, and that it answers to sed Latin, or mais in French', but he argues this is insufficient.
He analyses 'But to say no more' as intimating 'a stop of the mind in the course it was going, before it came quite to the end of it.'
In 'I saw but two plants', 'it shows that the mind limits the sense to what is expressed, with a negation of all other.'
In the sequence 'You pray; but it is not that God would bring you to the true religion. But that he would confirm you in your own.', the first 'but' 'intimates a supposition in the mind of something otherwise than it should be', the latter 'shows that the mind makes a direct opposition between that and what goes before it.'
In 'All animals have sense, but a dog is an animal', 'it signifies little more but that the latter proposition is joined to the former, as the minor of a syllogism.'
From these varied uses, Locke infers that if we surveyed all occurrences of 'but', we might doubt whether 'in all those manners it is made use of, it would deserve the title of discretive, which grammarians give to it.'

Source Quotes

Instance in “but.” “But” is a particle, none more familiar in our language: and he that says it is a discretive conjunction, and that it answers to sed Latin, or mais in French, thinks he has sufficiently explained it. But yet it seems to me to intimate several relations the mind gives to the several propositions or parts of them which it joins by this monosyllable.

But yet it seems to me to intimate several relations the mind gives to the several propositions or parts of them which it joins by this monosyllable. First, “But to say no more”: here it intimates a stop of the mind in the course it was going, before it came quite to the end of it. Secondly, “I saw but two plants”; here it shows that the mind limits the sense to what is expressed, with a negation of all other.

First, “But to say no more”: here it intimates a stop of the mind in the course it was going, before it came quite to the end of it. Secondly, “I saw but two plants”; here it shows that the mind limits the sense to what is expressed, with a negation of all other. Thirdly, “You pray; but it is not that God would bring you to the true religion.”

Fourthly, “But that he would confirm you in your own.” The first of these buts intimates a supposition in the mind of something otherwise than it should be: the latter shows that the mind makes a direct opposition between that and what goes before it. Fifthly, “All animals have sense, but a dog is an animal”: here it signifies little more but that the latter proposition is joined to the former, as the minor of a syllogism.

The first of these buts intimates a supposition in the mind of something otherwise than it should be: the latter shows that the mind makes a direct opposition between that and what goes before it. Fifthly, “All animals have sense, but a dog is an animal”: here it signifies little more but that the latter proposition is joined to the former, as the minor of a syllogism. 6.

This matter of the use of particles but lightly touched here. To these, I doubt not, might be added a great many other significations of this particle, if it were my business to examine it in its full latitude, and consider it in all the places it is to be found: which if one should do, I doubt whether in all those manners it is made use of, it would deserve the title of discretive, which grammarians give to it. But I intend not here a full explication of this sort of signs.

Key Concepts

“But” is a particle, none more familiar in our language: and he that says it is a discretive conjunction, and that it answers to sed Latin, or mais in French, thinks he has sufficiently explained it.
First, “But to say no more”: here it intimates a stop of the mind in the course it was going, before it came quite to the end of it.
Secondly, “I saw but two plants”; here it shows that the mind limits the sense to what is expressed, with a negation of all other.
The first of these buts intimates a supposition in the mind of something otherwise than it should be: the latter shows that the mind makes a direct opposition between that and what goes before it.
Fifthly, “All animals have sense, but a dog is an animal”: here it signifies little more but that the latter proposition is joined to the former, as the minor of a syllogism.
I doubt whether in all those manners it is made use of, it would deserve the title of discretive, which grammarians give to it.

Context

Book III, Chapter VII, §§5–6, where Locke closely examines several senses of 'but' to illustrate the multiple mental relations a single particle can mark and to challenge simple grammatical classifications.