Owen — Revision of Pronouns. 81 



Again, in "Brown has lost his horse/' there are pLainly two 

 thought-units, namely "Brown has lost a horse/' and what 

 might be more fully expressed by "The horse is Brown's." These 

 units have two common factors, namely "horse" and "Brown." 

 Of these two the common factor "horse" is also simultaneous 

 and would permit, for instance, the relative sentence "Brown has 

 lost the horse which is Brown's (or his)." But as this possi- 

 bility is not utilized, it need not further be considered. On the 

 other hand, the common factor "Brown" is not simultaneous. 

 It is successive, being twice thought, once in "Brown has lost a 

 horse" and again in what might be more fully expressed by "The 

 horse is (Brown's, his or) of Brown." This factor, however, 

 has not meantime lapsed from attention. In other words the 

 symbol "his" presents the idea of Brown coinstatively. Now I 

 may not say that "Brown has lost luhose horse." That is, not 

 only a reinstated, but also a coinstated common factor is unavail- 

 able for relative usaire. 



These propositions apply as follows : A given idea must ob- 

 viously be thought either once only or more than once, say twice. 

 Again, between two thinkings it must either lapse or not lapse. 

 That is, the second thinking, if it occur, must be either rein- 

 stative or coinstative. If now in relative usage it can be neither, 

 such idea cannot be thought of more than once ; or in other words 

 it is thought once only. If then, as in relative usage (see b) 

 such idea be a common factor, it must be of the simultaneous 

 type, as announced at the head of this section. 



Obedience to this law requires an analysis of the relative sen- 

 tence different from the one adopted by Grammar, which latter 

 may be illustrated as f ollovrs : Given "I met Brown, who is ill," 

 Grammar conceives "who is ill" as the relative clause, and the 

 remainder of the sentence as the principal. If the latter be ob- 

 literated, Grammar further notes that the residuary "who is 

 ill" is inadequate, observes that "Avho" is void of meaning, as- 

 sumes that it ought to have a meaning, believes that it would 

 Tiave a meaning, were "I met Brown" restored, and accordingly 

 claims that the relative clause depends upon the principal in the 

 vital sense of needing it in the interest of its own meaning. 



In argiiing against this opinion, w^hich quite obscures the truth, 



T revive in the first place the claim that "who" is the mere sign 

 6 



