Owen — Revision of Pronouns. 85 



overlooked by Grammar, ^vlien tliey chance to be adverbial. 

 That the adverb may indeed be vicarious was intimated on p. 

 31. In further illustration I offer the following sentences. Sup- 

 pose you say: "Jones acted impolitely." To this I answer: 

 ^^I don't think he acted so at all." ''So" reinstates ''impolitely." 

 Again, answering your question, "Does BrowTL dine here ?" I 

 answer: "He dines elsewhere/' that is, I name by ''elsewhere'^ 

 place distinguished as different from this place ("here") ; in 

 other words, the symbolic value of ''elsewhere" is partly reinsta- 

 tive and partly initiative. So, too, in "BrowTi eats wdth a fork. 

 Jones eats otherwise,'' the last word indicates a method differ- 

 ent from that indicated bv "with a fork." A2:ain, to vour state- 

 ment that "Bro\\^l is rich," I answer, "He is handsome, too, 

 Ukeiuise, also, withal, besides," meaning by "too" (or any of its 

 successors) '*in addition to rich." 



It has already been remarked that the pronouns, instead of 

 reviving a single idea, may revive an ideal plexus. It is nat- 

 ural to expect that such a plexus should sometimes have the 

 nature and the fullness of a thought. So far as the vicarious 

 word is in such a case conceived as a "thought-connective" or 

 sentence- joiner, it has been examined in another paper, in which 

 it is argued that the thought of a first sentence is substantively 

 reconceived and put by the connective in oblique or adverbial 

 association with the verb of the second sentence. To illustrate^ 

 "He invited jrq. . .Therefore I came." "Therefore" dissects 

 into "for (= from) that," the latter being a reinstative and the 

 former a relation-namer, the two together forming an adverbial 

 adjunct of "came." That is, "my coming" is conceived as 

 "from (= on account of) his inviting me." 



The thought vicariously presented may enter the structure of a sec- 

 ond thought in several ways, for instance, as its first term or subject. 

 Thus, to your statement: "Brown is ill", I answer "That (i. e., 

 Brov/n's being ill) surprises me". Again, the first thought, being rein- 

 stated in the second, may be its last term. Thus, answering again 

 your "Brown is ill", I say: "I regret ^Tiaf. " Je n'2/ crois pas" pre- 

 sents the illness of Brown as an indirect object or dative, "Ten suis 

 fache" offers it as genitive of source or ablative of cause. In short, 

 the various relations indicated by case forms are assumed by reinstated 

 thought. 



The vicarious presentation of thought thus far considered has beea 



