ii 



Owen — Revision of Pronouns. 99 



the type ^'The plum exceeds the cherry, wJiiches the orange the 

 lemon." In other words, we have not yet developed relative 

 verbs. Such verbs, being then merely an unrealized possibility, 

 require no consideration.* Accordingly the present case (b), in 

 which the relative is not the subject, excludes both the case in 

 which the relative is subject and the case in which it might be 

 the middle term or verb. 



Among the varieties of case (b) I take up first the one in 

 which the simultaneous factor appears in the relative clause as 

 its direct object. Reviving the illustration ^'The guest whom 

 Smith saluted is my nephew,'' I note that my meaning is as fol- 

 lows: The guest suitable to ''Smith saluted" is my nephew. 

 That is, just as with "who bowed to Smith" the simultaneous 

 factor was determined bv its fellows "bowed to Smith " so also 

 with "whom Smith saluted" the simultaneous factor is deter- 

 mined by its fellows "Smith saluted." 



What holds of the direct object holds also of the indirect. In 

 The guest to whom Smith bowed," the simultaneous factor 



guest" is determined by "to Smith bowed." That such 



is the fact is vividly suggested by the antigrammatical tendency 

 to range all the idea-naming words of the relative clause together, 



as in "The guest (whom) Smith bowed to." The motive 



for this arrangement seems to be that, the simultaneous factor 

 "guest" being put by itself, and the remainder of the relative 

 clause appearing as an unbroken total, the necessary juxtaposi- 

 tion of such factor and such total is made more easy. 



The adjunct of the subject is similarly treated. Thus, in 

 ^'The dancer, of whom the partner bowed to Smith, is my 

 nephew," "whom" is merely the sign that "dancer," in the sec- 

 ond of two simultaneous thought memberships, is governed by 

 of;" moreover, the prepositional phrase, "of whom," that is, 

 of the dancer," is in one aspect obviously a restrictive adjunct 

 of "partner ;" but, in a momentarily more important aspect, "of 



the partner bowed to Smith" is a restricter of "whom," 



that is, of "dancer," as suggested again by the popular form "the 

 dancer (whom) the partner of bowed to Smith." 



The adjunct of the object forms no exception. In "The 

 dancer of whom Smith saluted the partner," "dancer," in its 

 second membership, forms with "of" an adjunct of "partner/' 



4(. 



