Owen — Eevision of Pronouns. 93 



them "would have served to show you the person of whom I wish 

 to speak. 



To generalize, given in a principal clause a need of determi- 

 nation, a particular restrictive clause is admitted only in case 

 it can meet that need. Given also several restrictive clauses 

 able to meet that need, the choice among them is guided first of 

 all by their respective ability. The restrictive clause has no in- 

 dividual raison d'etre. It cannot justify its existence by the 

 unaided value of what it mentions. This is not itself an end, 

 but onlv a means to an end. Far from beinc; like the informa- 

 tional relative self-sufficient, it is in itself conspicuously insuffi- 

 cient ; it is merely ancillary or auxiliary ; it is dependent in the 

 sense of needing another clause in justification of its own exist- 

 ence. Its warrant for entering the sentence is by no means the 

 intrinsic value of what it expresses, but the availability thereof 

 in the service of the principal. 



Such being the case, it is strictly irrelevant to consider at all the 

 question of its intrinsic value. Yet the confusion prevalent at this 

 point is so great as to invite some development of the following axio- 

 matic proposition; the intrinsic value of a restrictive relative may be 

 what it will, either in reality or novelty. 



Examining in turn the elements of value already noted on p. 89, 

 ! find, in the first place, that the import of the restrictive clause might 

 be either already known or unknown. That the already known should 

 be available in the clarification of a statement has been already shown 

 in "The guest who bowed to Smith is my nephew." In this example 

 I utilize your knowledge of the bowing, to help you understand what 

 guest I mean. The contrast between the restrictive and the informa- 

 tional clause is in this case at a maximum. The latter is a gift added 

 to that of the principal. The restrictive is rather a draft upon your 

 acquisitions to pay the expense of transporting the principal. The in- 

 formational embodies what you don't know, because you don't know it, 

 and in order that you may know it. The restrictive embodies what 

 you do know, because you know it, and in order to help you know some- 

 thing else. 



That the unknown should also be available in restriction is not so 

 obvious. To illustrate, I choose, among many possible cases, the ex- 

 treme one, in which neither speaker nor hearer knows that which the 

 restrictive mentions, and neither has ever even heard or thought of it 

 before. I assume accordingly that the thought of men's eating rats has 

 never appeared in your mind or mine, and that much less can either 

 of us know that they do so. Wishing now to indicate the gastronomic 



