96 Wisconsiji Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. 



ble, joii must in particular conceive the ^%iiest" as suitable to 

 "bowed to Smith;" and this yon cannot do of each and every 

 gnest. Yon mnst not therefore think of any gnest who did not 

 perform that act. That is, in order that the idea named by 

 '^gnest" may snit the ideas named by "bowed to Smith/' it must 

 be the idea of only one, and a particular one, of the persons as- 

 sembled. In the second place, having thought of the right guest 

 in connection with "bowed to Smith," you must hold fast to him, 

 and not allow him to be displaced in your mind, or accompanied 

 by any other, as you pass on to his being my nephew That is, 

 in the relative clause of restrictive type, the simultaneous factor 

 must be conceived suitablv to the other ideas with which therein 

 it is associated ; and in the principal clause that simultaneous 

 factor must be conceived exactlv as in the restrictive. In other 

 words, the scope of the simultaneous factor is, in the relative 

 clause, adjusted to suit its fellows; and in the principal clause 

 this scope is maintained. The simultaneous factor, it may then 

 be said, is specially fitted for its service in the principal clause 

 by its service in the relative clause; and, as this special fitting 

 is a reduction of possible scope, it may very well be said that 

 the simultaneous factor, in its use as part of the principal clause, 

 is restricted, determined, or limited bv its associates in the rela- 

 tive clause ; or, in particular, "giiest" is limited by "bowed to 

 Smith." 1 



In order to feel this limiting, this adaptation of the scope 

 of the relative to its fellow clause-members, the mind is obliged 

 to view the relative clause as made up of a limited and a limit- 

 ing part — to analyze it, that is, in the present case, into its sub- 

 ject (the simultaneous factor) and its predicate or remainder. 

 "Guest," the true subject of the relative clause, is juxtaposed 



^By Grammar, however, the limiter of "guest" is said to be ''who bowed to 

 Smith." The utter untenahility of this proposition will appear, I hope, in 

 further examination. For the moment it may be enough to note that if, as I 

 argue, "who" is merely an instructional element, it cannot be recognized as nam- 

 ing one of the ideas restricting "guest," but if. as Grammar will have it, "who" 

 stands for an idea or thought element, that idea can only be that of "guest ;" 

 that is. such idea is twice thought of, once as symbolized by "guest," and again 

 as symbolized by "who." But the moment "the guest" is thought of twice, it 

 ceases to be a simultaneous factor, becoming successive ; that is, a breach occurs 

 in thought continuity, and the actual value of my sentence becomes "A guest 

 bowed to Smith. The guest is my nephew ;" that is, I have no longer a single 

 monophrastlc sentence, but two sentences or, at tlie least, a sentence of the 

 polyphrastic type. 



