Owen — Revision of Pronouns. 57 



of two thoughts — the chance of misunderstanding function is 

 naturally multiplied. To illustrate, abrogating as before the 

 aid of order, 'The man the dragon slew the lion wounded.'' 

 Erom this statement you do not even learn which factor is sim- 

 ultaneous. Assuming this however to be the dragon, I note 

 that, in ''The man the dragon slew" you do not know whether 

 "man" or ''dragon" was the victim; and, in "dragon the lion 

 wounded," you do not know w^hether "lion" or "dragon" did the 

 wounding. Clearly then, whatever language does in the way 

 of indicating function, is specially desirable, when function ia 

 double. Once committed to the policy of function-indication, 

 language may be expected to attempt such indication hi the case 

 in which it is most of all needed. Obviously, too, such an at- 

 tempt will fail of complete results, unless it indicates each func- 

 tion of the doubly functionating idea. 



That the indication of each function is actuallv felt to be 

 important, appears in the follow^ing examples. In Bulwer's 

 Kienzi 2, 1 (so Maetzner), occurs the phrase (1) "defense 

 against w;7iosoever shall aspire," In the same volume, 2, 6, the 

 same author writes "control of wdiomsoever should be elected." 

 The structure of these phrases being the same, I substitute in 

 the latter, for greater ease of comparison, the ideas of the for- 

 mer, obtaining (2) "defense against ivJiomsoevev shall aspire." 

 It is obvious that, in (1) and (2) alike, some one (or any one) 

 is conceived at the same time as the object in a defense, and the 

 subject in an aspiration. In (1) the subjective aspect of this 

 some one is indicated bv the form "who," the behavior of "who- 

 soever" toward "shall aspire" being irreproachable. But "who 

 soever" is guilty of ignoring the claims of "defense against, 

 which requires the form "whomsoever." Per contra in (2) the 

 objective aspect of the some one is indicated by "whom," the 

 conduct of "whomsoever" toward "defense against" being quite 

 beyond reproach. But "whomsoever" utterly neglects its duty 

 toward "shall aspire," which requires the form "w^hosoever." 

 That is, collectivelv stated, the cited author recognizes the need 

 of indicating each function of a some one, although he fails to 

 meet both needs at once. 



The actual method by which these needs are commonly met, 

 though transparently simple, is so obscured by gTammatical 



7? 



