Owen — Revision of Pronouns. 101 



may be expressed by multiple symbolization, as in "A stain of 

 blood remains there (in tlie place) where (in which) Lincoln 

 fell." In such case the function of the simultaneous factor be- 

 ing in both thoughts the same, the need of indicating it in the 

 relative clause is little felt ; accordingly the relative word might 

 be omitted. But at this point confusion arises. In substantive 

 usage of 'the simultaneous factor it is, as properly, the relative 

 itself that disappears, as in "I have met the man (whom) you 

 seek,'' etc. But, in the case of a verbal adjunct, what disappears 

 is more commonly the so-called antecedent, as in "A stain of 

 blood remains (there) where Lincoln fell." Whether in such 

 case there be a supplying of ^'there" or an exchange of mean- 

 ing between "there" and "where" or an incorporation of both 

 meanings in "where" (Conf. "what" = "that which"), it is 

 needless and possibly useless to inquire. 



That the simultaneous factor may appear not only as part of 

 an adjunct in the relative clause, but also as part of an adjunct 

 of an adjimct, and so on to the nth degree of remoteness, is an ob- 

 vious possibility. The actual retirement of this factor into the 

 more distant background of the relative clause may be illustrated 

 as follows : "Bring me the trousers for the pocket of which you 

 were sent to ransack the shops to find a button." That is, in 

 diagram : 



You — were — sent 



I 



(was for) 



(you) to ransack the shops 



I 



(was for) 



I 



(you) to find — a button 



I 



(was) for 



I 



the pocket — (was) of — ( which ) 

 Bring ( trousers ) 



Accordingly "trousers," in its membership of the relative 

 clause, is part of an adjunct of "pocket," which is part of an 



