86 Owen—Meaning and Function of Thought-Connectives. 
The original (?) value of “so ” is “ in that degree;” e. g. “The 
boy is so tall” (accompanied by an explanatory gesture). From 
this it has made the somewhat difficult transition to the value 
of “ in that manner, ” e. g. “ He stood so” (accompanied by a de¬ 
scriptive attitude). Both these values, primarily deiktic or 
demonstrative, easily become anaphoric or reinstative. Thus 
“ The sun melts snow by its heat. So fire melts lead. ” That 
is, “ Fire melts lead in a previously mentioned, reinstated 
manner. ” Another easy transition develops the meaning “ by 
the same agency ” or “ from the same cause. ” The final change 
to the value of “ therefore ” is much more violent and invites a 
passing observation. 
Let X stand for a phenomenon which is neither distinctly nor 
centrally in mind. Let A and B stand for two other phenomena 
both distinct and central. Let both these last be somewhat 
vaguely conceived as caused by X. If now A is described as occa¬ 
sioned by X, it is natural to say “So B is occasioned.” But the 
case offers two possibilities. X may occasion both A and B. 
Or X may occasion A, which in turn occasions B. That is, X 
may occasion A directly and B indirectly. Now “ so ” (= from the 
same cause) can properly be used of B only when B is, like A, 
directly caused by X. But it is easy to make the slip of using 
“so” with a B which is only indirectly caused by X—a B 
which is directly the result of A instead of being, concomitantly 
with A, a result of X. That is, what I have elsewhere de¬ 
scribed as the “ minor relation ” of co-effect to co-effect, is con¬ 
fused with the major relation of effect to cause and the same 
word, namely “so," is used to name both relations; e. g. “He 
invited me. So I came;” i. e. “I came (not as co-effect, with the 
inviting, of the invitation’s cause, but) as effect of the invita¬ 
tion (itself). ” 
In the preliminary study of connectives the present class was 
“ The iron is too hot. So that I cannot hold it.” Either the word “ that ” 
must be rejected as superfluous or a considerable ellipsis must be filled. 
“ So ” alone, unencumbered by “ that,” will be covered by the explanation 
which is to follow. If “ that ” is retained, it is necessary to fill the ellipsis 
with some such result as “ So it is true that I cannot hold it,” “So you 
see, etc.”, “ So it is plain, etc.” All these sentences may be treated like 
those with “so ” alone; but presumably no one of them is really intended. 
