Owen — Revision of Pronouns. 59 



tal thought, I remember that, as argued, the idea named by 

 ^^man'^ is thought but once. Accordingly I use the symbol 

 ^^hom" but once, obtaining "Biblia docent nem-hom-o \^ilt 

 discere.'^ In this expression the imaginary ^^nem-hom-o'' be- 

 haves itself with perfect propriety in both its memberships. It 

 performs its duty to "docent,'' without in the least neglecting 

 what it owes to "vult." 



To make my example even more suggestive, I will slightly 

 change its form. Eecalling the fact that function-bigns were 

 at one time independent words, entitled to be written separately, 

 I restore the "o" to its ancient rights, obtaining "Docent neni- 

 hom o vult discere." Noting also that noun-inflections, whether 

 showing function in preceding or following thought, affect the 

 terminal position, I conform to custom by changing my illustra- 

 tion into "Docent hominem o vult discere.'' 



In fact it is in such a form that the effort to indicate double 

 function would be expected to find expression. For language, 

 so far as I have learned, has not conceived the expedient of 

 uniting to one word two functional inflections. Such being the 

 case, whichever need of showing function is sooner felt, is met 

 by the use of a single inflection, which is suffixed to the idea- 

 sign or word. The function-indicating power of the word is 

 then conceived to be exhausted. When now the need of show- 

 ing another function is also felt, and the sign of that function, 

 being made ready, seeks to join itself also to the word, it finds 

 its natural place pre-empted. What would consistently appear 

 as part of the word remains therefore, so to speak, a verbal out- 

 sider. 



This accident however does not seem to imply any change of 

 values, "^em" as appearing in "hominem" is still a mere sign 

 that "hom" is to be taken as object of "docent." "O" as before, 

 though now separately written, is merely a sign that "hom" ia 

 also subject of "vult." "O" then, although at present separately 

 written, is still a mere inflection of "hom." Also, what is most 

 of all important, the idea named and functionally twice de- 

 scribed by "hominem o" is necessarily no more twice thought 

 than was the case with the mentally equivalent "nem-hom-o." 



