108 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. 



liappy" or "Men are-if-they-be-virtuous (leaving out other cases) 

 happy." That is, the two expressions are in a sense equivalent. 



The special nature of this equivalence may be indicated as follows: 

 Being unready to risk the unrestricted proposition that "Men are 

 happy," I discover two available restrictive methods. I may, by an 

 if-clause, confine the scope of relation between men and happiness 

 (that is, the scope of "are") to the cases in which men are virtuous. 

 Or, by a relative clause, I may confine the scope of "men" itself to such 

 persons as are distinguished by virtue. Either method develops a 

 thought which agrees in substance with external fact, to a degree suf- 

 ficient to meet the unexacting requirements of speech. In such sub- 

 stantial agreement the methods noted may accordingly be ranked as 

 equivalent. But in structure the two are very different; for in one I 

 have restricted the first term of thought, and in the other the mid- 

 term. This difference between substantial and structural agreement 

 may be reinforced by algebraic illustrations. Thus given "6 a;> y,' 

 let the coefficient of the first term be transferred to the last, developing 

 '*ir> 62/." These two expressions may be equivalent in the sense that 

 both are true to external fact; but they exhibit widely different inner 

 facts, by which I mean subjective phenomena produced by external 

 fact; that is, they are structurally very different. The equivalence of 

 relative clause and tantamount expression may however be not only 

 substantial but also structural. 



Such equivalence I will exhibit by a single illustration, choos- 

 ing the relative clause in "Apples which are ripe" and its ad- 

 jective substitute in "Eipe apples" or, in the order common with 

 other languages, "Apples ripe." 



In this relative clause the word "which," being not the sym- 

 bol of any thought-element, but merely the instructional indi- 

 cation how to use an element already furnished to thought, may 

 be omitted. The programme of a procession, even of ideas, is 

 no part of the procession itself. Islj expressions to be compared 

 reduce then to "Apples are ripe" and "Apples ripe." 



■■ ■ — — .., •«-— — ■ •- ■■• — -..^ ■ ... - , . ' ' -..-■ — ■■ — — >~<m 



obvious that "the large slice of rare roast beef" belongs in structure at the 

 same time with "There you have" and "yon are so fond of;" that is, it is a 

 simultaneous factor of large dimensions and of great importance in each of my 

 thoughts ; it surely joins the wholes of which it is a part no less effectively than 

 would a common element of minor bull? or importance ; yet Grammar does not 

 recognize it as conjunctive. Again, in "I have the b'oolc you want," while the 

 simultaneous factor ("booli") is much reduced in magnitude, it remains an ele- 

 ment of major importance, being no less than the immediate object of both my 

 clauses ; yet it it not conceived by Grammar to be conjunctive. But let the 

 simultaneous factor, retiring from the sentential foreground, appear as merely 

 an adjunct, that is, a common element of minor importance ; it may at once 

 be recognized as a conjunction, as in "Brown dfesses fashionably as does Smith." 

 So also in "He lay as he fell," the common manner-naming factor "as" is usually 

 ranked as conjunctive. 



