Owen — Revision of Pronouns. 139 



"by no means peculiar to bad Englisli, bnt duplicated, more or less 

 exactly, throughout the range of language. 



The use of strictly indefinite conjunctions, especially those 

 distinguished as thought-connectives, is notoriously the stum- 

 bling block of many writers. 



The interjections, meaning now particularly the words for 

 emotion, are frequently of the most non-committal type. 



The indefinite preposition is specially interesting as showing 

 with special clearness the occasional indefiniteness of even the 

 simplest relations. To illustrate, the relation expressed by "at" 

 in "at the intersection of two streets," while definite enough per- 

 haps with respect to distance, is quite indefinite as to bearing 

 (see p. 129). I may for instance have in mind a house on either 

 corner, an electric light above the central line of either street, or 

 a cistern directly heloiu. Again the extremely variable "of," in 

 some of its uses, seems to be as completely indefinite as any 

 element of speech. In "The things of this life," I can hardly 

 define the "of" as standing, even to my own mind, for anything 

 more special than "related to in any way." 



THEIR NOK-PEONOMIITALITY. 



By this caption I invite the question : Can the indefinite be 

 also a pronoun, or, can a single word be not only indefinite, but 

 also vicarious ? That it can, is to my own mind so nearly axi- 

 omitic as to invite no comment. But, to make sure of the mat- 

 ter, suppose, in illustration, "I bring you a box of roses. Some 

 are red and others are white." In this sentence "Some" is no 

 doubt indefinite ; but it is also reinstative (vicarious) : it re- 

 vives in mind a part of an idea already expressed by "roses," 

 but meantime allowed to lapse; and in the present usage it is 

 helpless without its principal. 



The fact, however, that the same word is at the same time 

 vicarious and indefinite, should hardly entail confusion of these 

 attributes. The case is merely parallel to that of personals (p. 

 127) and that of demonstratives (p. 134). It does not even 

 suggest that what is indefinite should therefore be ranked as 

 also pronominal. Accordingly I deny that indefinites are pro- 

 noims, meaning that mere indefiniteness does not constitute pro- 



