Owen — Revision of Pronouns. 107 



object of this grouping ia to put both "sis" and "four" before you as 

 actually, each, in part, a subject. Accordingly, I put both "six" and 

 "four" in the nominative. Also, having shown you that my partial sub- 

 jects form indeed a group, I use that form of the verb which is cus- 

 tomary when the subject is in the plural number, or consists of more 

 than a single individual. ilccordingly my verb is of the so-called 

 plural form. 



Linking v/as illustrated above by "Brov/n dresses fashionably, as 

 does Smith." In this sentence Grammar recognizes that "does Smith" 

 is joined by "as" to "Brov/n dresses fashionably." In this case, then, 

 the joining regards two thoughts. As previously argued, it is effected 

 by their simultaneous factor, the idea oi manner expressed in the first 

 place by "fashionably," and continued by "as." I do not, in this case, 

 need to show that the conjunctional clause is equivalent to a relative 

 clause; for, as already indicated, (pp. 71-2) the so-called conjunction 

 "as' is itself a relative.^ 



The equivalence of expressions noted as tantamount, thus far roughly 

 assumed, deserves more careful verification. In attempting this, I wish 

 to avoid, if possible, the inexactness of Grammar. To illustrate, given 

 "Men who are virtuous are happy" and "Men are happy if they are 

 virtuous," the bewildering statement is made, that the relative clause 

 and the "if-clause" are equivalent. 



Such equivalence 1 am ready to admit, provided only its special na- 

 ture be clearly recognized. To illustrate this, suppose that "The 

 French king befriended the Pope." If now the befriending be of the 

 tenth century, the king can hardly be of the eighth and the Pope of the 

 twelfth. It may indeed be still more broadly affirmed that, subject, 

 object, or action being, any one of them, conceived as of a given time, 

 the laws by which phenomena seem to be governed, may compel me to 

 conceive the others also in time coincidence. The same is true of 

 space. The same is true in some of the other categories. That is, it 

 may on a given occasion make no essential difference what element of 

 my thought I choose to restrict; the restriction, once applied to either 

 element, may extend to the others. In my initial example I may ac- 

 cordingly saj'- either "Men-who-are-virtuous (leaving out other men) are 



^As already noted, the simultaneous factoi* may appear in any function of 

 either principal or relative clause ; that is, it varies greatly in structural im- 

 portance. As I shall farther indicate, the simultaneous factor also varies in 

 volume. It viould accordingly be natural to suppose that, the bigger and the 

 more important such common factor, the more actual would be the junction ef- 

 fected. Given tv;^o calves with even a tail in common, I should no doubt admit 

 their junction. If their common element were the muzzle, I should concede 

 their junction even more readily, recognizing this muzzle as of structurally 

 higher rank than the tail. If the vastly larger and more important trunk or 

 torso were theirs in common, I should regard the proof of junction as over- 

 whelming, and the joining common element as effective in the highest degree. 



Oddly enough, however, Grammar reverses such interpretation, recognizing 

 as conjunctions only smaller and inconspicuous common elements. Thus in 

 "There you have the large slice of rai-e roast beef you are so fond of," it is 



