86 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. 



to complex cerebration, I may even say "A stone struck Brown. 

 It liurt him.'' The linguistic law of single simailtaneoiis factor 

 is then but a special application of the general law that energy, 

 in this case mental, tends to follow the line of least resistance. 



(/) Of the relative sentence the relative clause may he infor- 

 mational. 



This proposition, being generally admitted, may be merely 

 illustrated as follows: ^'I have met Brown, who is ill.'' 

 By this sentence I wish you to understand both that I have met 

 Brown and that Brown is ill. That such is mv intention is in- 

 dicated by my ability, without thwarting that intention, to sub- 

 stitute "I met Brown. Bro^oi (he) is ill." My sentence then 

 contains two statements ; or my apparently single sentence is 

 really two. It may be knovv^n as polyphrastic. 



(g) Of the relative sentence the relative clause may he re- 

 strictive. 



This proposition merely substitutes the term restrictive 

 for the currently accepted term ^'determinative," and again 

 requires illustration only. Accordingly, ^'I want a horse which 

 can trot in 1 :30." Applying again my previous tests, I find 

 that if I say ^^I want a horse. He can trot in 1 :30," my inten- 

 tion is defeated. Postponing rigid examination, I confine 

 myself, for the moment, to noting that, in associating a horse with 

 a 1 :30 gait, I desire solely to guide you to the mere conception of 

 a particular equine type. I am far from wishing to assert that 

 any horse can trot so fast. My relative clause is accordingly not 

 informational, but restrictive, excluding horses otherwise think- 

 able. The sentence of which it forms an essential part, con- 

 taining but a single statement, may be known as monoplirastic.' 



^The difference between the informational and the restrictive clause may be 

 emphasized as follows : Given the word "men," the idea which it will rouse in 

 your mind is obviously variable. You may think of all men in all that consti- 

 tutes their manhood — of less — or even of more. The restrictive relative leads 

 you to think of less. Thus, "who are virtuous," excluding "wicked." leads you to 

 think of less men and less qualities. It resembles a numerical coefficient of the 

 fractional type, e. g., i. On the other hand the informational clause, for in- 

 stance "who are God's creatures" leads you to think of men in a broadened 

 range of characteristics. Such a clause is, in a sense, augmentive ; it resem- 

 bles a numerical coeflacient of the integral type, e. g., 5. 



