134 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. 



is presented as it is; I certainl}' do not call it vicarious from 

 any peculiarity in the nature of its idea. Above all, it does not 

 occur to me to argue that, because a vicarious word appears on 

 this occasion to be also egocentric, the next time I meet a mere- 

 ly egocentric word I am to rank it as vicarious, and hence a 

 pronoun. I am further not at all surprised that the same 

 word may on occasion simultaneously rank in two categories; 

 for no effort was made to render these categories mutually ex- 

 clusive. The egocentric category is concerned with the forma- 

 tion of an idea in the mind. The vicarious category has to 

 do with the idea's presentation by a word. The two are as 

 irrelevant as the gi'owing of wheat and the method of its ship- 

 ment. The same grain may be at the same time of my rais- 

 ing, and sent to London by your steamer. But its production 

 by me does not necessarily locate it in your vessel. So also the 

 egocentric grO'"\\i:h of an idea does not make its presentation vica- 

 rious. In other words, the special type of egocentricism known 

 as demonstrative does not per se entitle an idea's presentation 

 to rank as pronominal. That is, barring the expressional ac- 

 cident of vicarious presentation, the demonstratives are not pro- 

 noims in the sense of being vicarious. Their study is foreign to 

 the field of Grammar, and belongs of right in the domain of Lex- 

 icology. 



