82 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. 



that a simultaneous factor of two clauses is, in tlie relative clause^ 

 the subject; that it has no meaning; that it is not the subject in 

 the relative structure ; that the actual subject of the relative- 

 clause is "Brown," simultaneously object in the principal. That 

 is, the true analysis is not [I met Brown] (who is ill), but [I 

 met (Brown] who is ill.) 



If now one of these clauses be abolished, the question rises, what be- 

 comes of their common property? Passing to an extremely objective' 

 illustration, suppose that you and I are common owners of a horse. 

 If I am killed, that incident does not destroy the beast or abrogate your 

 ownership. You are no less and it may be even more the owner of 

 the horse than before. Returning to matters of thought, in the phrase 

 "a tall slender tree," I might indeed conceive a tree as once character- 

 ized by a pair of qualities. But I may also think of it as twice char- 

 acterized and each time by a single quality; that is, the tree may be 

 the simultaneous factor of two thoughts. If now I omit the conception 

 of the tree's tallness, I do not find that, in disappearing, it tears from 

 my mind the idea of the tree or even that it makes off with the proper 

 word for that object. That is, given 



( characterized by tallness 

 Tree -J 



( characterized by slenderness 



I do not find that either phrase is mutilated by the disappearance of 

 the other. 



In striving to show that the same is true of the strictly relative.- 

 clause, I wish to avoid multiplicity of issues, such as number and 

 gender. Accordingly let the Latin stem "Homin" stand, in a contem- 

 plated illustration, for men; let "es" stand solely for use as subject, or 

 first term, in principal thought; let "qui" stand solely for use as sub- 

 ject in relative thought. In diagramming my illustration, I will write 

 the principal clause downward on the left, and the relative downward 

 on the right. As I shall think of men but once, though in two thoughts,. 

 I write the symbol "homin" once only, indicating the sequence of each, 

 thought by downward lines. "Qui," as sign of function in the right- 

 hand clause, will naturally stand at the right of "homin." "Es," being 

 sign of function in the clause on the left, I will for convenience write 

 it on the left of "homin." To indicate the functional parity of these- 

 signs, I will join each to "homin" by a hyphen. Accordingly 



es-Homin-qui 



/ \ 

 sunt sunt 



/ \ 



mortales animales 



