Owen — Revision of Pronouns. 31 



^^Tlie shoes" may then, as well as ^*thev," be regarded as a re- 

 instatement of '^mj shoes." In such reinstatement obviously 

 ^'shoes'' reinstates ''shoes only;" accordingly the reinstater of 

 the remaining ''my" wonld seem to be the article ^'The." 



The verbal use of the proxy is well-nigh theoretical only. 

 To the question vrhether Brown sawed or chopped his Avood, 

 language might provide an intelligible answer of the form, ^^He 

 thissed it," or "He thatted it." But, so far as I am aware, 

 approximations only to such usage have been noted in actual 

 practice. Thus, if you ask whether my son stammers, I may 

 answer, "He does/' and while it mav be aroaied that "stammer" 

 is understood, there is some reason for believing that it is not, 

 or at least not alwavs. Latin sometimes allows a similar usa2:e 

 with '^facere ;" but "f acit bulbutire" would not be tolerated in 

 the sense required. ■'■ 



Obviously such verbal usage of the vicarious word may read- 

 ily become particiinal or verbally adjective. 



It may also plainly become gerundive or verbally substantive. 



The adverhial use of the proxy is very common, though not 

 always recognized by Grammar. To illustrate, suppose you 

 say of your horse that "He walks rapidly/' I answer that ^^My 

 horse walks so too." 



Prepositions are constantly repeated without linguistic squeamishness. 

 Thus if you ask whether I was in the house cr in the barn, I answer 

 that "I was in the house", without fear of giving offense by using so 

 soon again the unobtrusive "in". The reasons of this exceptional tol- 

 eration need not be demonstrated. The fact itself discourages the 

 search for prepositional proxies. The possibility of reinstating by a 

 preposition may be suggested, however, as follows: Suppose you enter 

 my room as, in answer to a previous question, I utter the words "By 

 me". To your mind the word "by" suggests no doubt an idea; indeed 

 it is likely to suggest several. It may mean "near", as in "He sat by 

 the fire; it may mean "alongside of", as in "The path runs 61/ the river"; 

 it may mean "past", as in "He walked ty my door". As a matter of 

 fact I use it in the present case with none of these meanings. While 

 then it can, it is true, make abundant suggestions, it is unable of itself 

 to specify the right idea. If however this right idea be previously 

 presented by an initiative, the word "by" can reproduce it exactly. To 



iConf. "He does not stammer: but he bids fair to." In such expressions it 

 has been claimed that "to" has the value of "to stammer ;" that is, "to" is re- 

 garded as vicarious and is verbally employed. 



