Owen — Bevision of Pronouns. 23 



(3) "I am going to speak of Zachaeus. He saw his Lord." The prin- 

 cipal is neither in the proxy's sentence nor of it. 



In (2) the principal is held by Grammar to be of the nominative case. 

 Experience, however, justifies the interpretation of this verdict as mean- 

 ing merely that the word is spelled with the same letters as when it 

 names the subject. It surely has no other claim to nominative rank. It 

 attends in fact to none of the duties performed by the different cases. 

 In particular it gives no hint of how its idea will be used in the struc- 

 ture of any thought. For if the thought of which that idea is a con- 

 stituent factor, were what I express by "Zachaeus is my topic", no doubt 

 Zachaeus would be planned to serve as subject and would properly rank 

 as a nominative; but if that thought were rather "I am going to discuss 

 Zachaeus," no doubt Zachaeus would be planned to serve as object and 

 could not rank as nominative. Again, of the thought whose expression 

 begins with "he", "Zachaeus" does not foretell the subject or the object. 

 I may indeed be about to say that "he climbed"; but I may also be 

 planning "a tree upheld him", etc., etc.; in fact I may not even myself have 

 determined the structure of this thought. 



The use of nouns in book and chapter titles is much the same. In 

 these the nolm does not, indeed, by force make room for itself in the 

 following sentence, and its forewarning purpose is not so special; it 

 does, however, suggest the general nature of what is to follow. It is 

 also true of every principal that it may be taken as a warning of its 

 proxy's meaning. When such becomes its special purpose, through the 

 renunciation of other purposes, it may be recognized by a special desig- 

 nation, such as propositive, introductory or titular. As indicated above 

 it is really a caseless form, a proposition of an idea, that is, in blank, 

 without any of the various further conceptions which Grammar has 

 grouped in the category of case. Yet, if that must be known as case 

 which really is no case, it would be less confusing to call the principal, 

 in the now considered usage, a titular or propositive case, than to call 

 it nominative. 



If it be conceded that "Zachaeus he did climb" is a mere curtailment 

 of "I am going to speak of Zachaeus. He did climb," it is obvious that 

 after "Zachaeus" a breach of thought occurs in both expressions. 

 Strictly then the former should be written "Zachaeus. He did climb 

 etc." It would be the merest corollary to add that "He" is reinstative; 

 that is, an idea named by Zachaeus disappears at the end of a first 

 thought or rather a fragment thereof; the idea reappears in another 

 thought under the infiuence of "He". 



I feel however that the usual thought-procedure is different. The 

 mind of the people seems to persuade itself that what it seeks to ex- 

 press by "Zachaeus he did climb" is a single thought. That such is 

 indeed the popular persuasion, is indicated by the popular utterance of 

 the sentence. This may be indicated in writing as follows: "Zachaeus he 

 did climb." What may be the actual structure of the thought so oddly 



