REASON AND DIVERS TONGUES. 259 



of any differentiation between the subject and the 

 predicate ? " To this we can reply in the lately cited 

 words,* " If a given subject be ' here,' * there,' " etc., 

 " we need no ghost to tell us that it is!' Here Mr. 

 Romanes's whole contention shows the absurdity of 

 Nominalism. " Is " the concept, is there plainly enough, 

 though " is " the " spoke word " be absent. 



He continues,! " Of course all this futile argument 

 on the part of my opponents, rests upon the analysis of 

 the proposition as this was given by Aristotle." To this 

 we reply, it does not rest one bit on any such analysis, 

 but on the perception of the thought underlying pro- 

 positions, whether expressed in Greek, Dayak, Chinese, 

 or Polynesian phraseology. 



This answer Mr. Romanes anticipates as a possi- 

 bility, X saying, that in order to meet it, he must refer to 

 points which he considers were established by him in 

 previous chapters, and which we have already, we think, 

 sufficiently refuted. 



He then refers to propositions made by children, 

 anteriorly to what he deems the advent of self-con- 

 sciousness, "prior to the very condition which is required 

 for any process of conceptual thoughts But, as we have 

 shown, consciousness is plainly present long before the 

 period which Mr. Romanes arbitrarily assigns for its 

 advent. Again, he says § that such propositions are 

 " due to merely sensuous associations and the external 

 logic of events " — a thing we utterly deny. " Will any 

 opponent venture to affirm," he asks, " that preconcep- 

 tual ideation is indicative of judgment ? " We reply, of 



* From p. 312. t P- 320. t P- 321. § p. 323- 



