114 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Ai'ts, and Letters. 



APPENDIX A— PERSOiSrALS. 



HOW THEY DIFFER FROM OTHER WORDS. 



This has been suggested in Chapter L, and will be emphasized 

 again. Words like ^^I" are imprimis initiative and not, as a 

 rule, vicarious. As initiatives they are further distinguishable 

 from the indefinite members of the initiative class, being ob- 

 viously definite.-^ Again, as definites, they are distinctly of 

 the egocentric type. To the most superficial observation it is 

 plain that the values of ^T," ^Hhou," etc., change with the change 

 of their user. But this peouliarity is shared by '^this" and 

 ^^that," by '^come" and "go ;" to separate the personals from 

 these, a further distinctive is required. 



Such a distinctive has been found for the personals in their 

 restriction of the egocentric view to the phenomenon of speech, 

 it being held that such an idea as that expressed by "thou" could 

 not be developed, except in the field of thought-communication. 

 It therefore seems sufficient to designate the personals as words 

 which egocentrically distinguish the participants in thought- 

 communication.^ 



HOW THEY DIFFER OlS^E FROM ANOTHER. 



The fact that the personals change their value with the change 

 in the user forces our examination to elect one user as a guide 

 and to abide by his point of view. For convenience I adopt the 

 view-point of myself, rejecting the Pharisaic formula "I am not 

 as other men." It is true that our ego-centric ideas are very 



^For the occasional indefinite use of "they," "you," etc., see appendix C. 



2 In carrying out this view some difficulty offers in the case of "I," which ap- 

 pears as common term of the spatial series "I," "this," "that," and the colloquial 

 series "I," "thou," "he." It is plain that "this" and "thou" are very different, 

 as also "that" and "he". The question rises whether the "I" of one series be 

 also different from the "I" of the other. Frankly admitting that the question 

 is too deep for my own psychology, I merely suggest that they seem to me the 

 same, a change of category not appearing to require change in idea. The same 

 point may be a part of two lines, without assuming a double character. The 

 sr.xne self may be differentiated from persons (or things) In other places and 



