88 Owen—Meaning and Function of Thought- Connectives. 
naming power. In the case of “ therefore ” this element was 
seen to mean “ on account of that ”; but in the present case it 
means “in spite of that.” “Never” (= not) and “ less” con- 
bine in the meaning “ to the same degree, ” which may be neg¬ 
lected as being a mere emphasizer. 1 The relation expressed by 
“in spite of” is reverse and the value of “that” reinstative. 
Their combination, strictly adjunct of the last thought, is 
taken as adverb to its verb. 
1 This interpretation may be itemized as follows. Imprimis the facts re¬ 
quire us to introduce the second statement by some such formula as “ an¬ 
tagonistically thereto.’’ In developing this value from “nevertheless” 
we must be careful both with meanings and with their combination. The 
meanings are obviously “ from” (which usually means on account of), 
“ that ” (reinstative), “never’’(with the essential value of “not”) and 
“less,” which defines itself. In the combination of these meanings the 
important question is what to do with “not.” If put with “held,” the 
meaning is that the cable did not hold, which meaning is untenable. If 
“ not” be put with “firm,” the meaning is that the cable held not firm or 
perhaps even weakly, which is untenable. If “ not” be put with “it,” 
(the cable), the meaning is again useless. If “not ” be put with “on ac¬ 
count of,” a particular relation is excluded; but as the number of possible 
relations is immense, the exclusion of a wrong one gives no practical 
help in finding the right one. The result then of such exclusion would be 
merely to leave the hearer in total ignorance of the relation between the 
two thoughts contemplated. This also is presumably not intended. If 
“not” be put with “that,” the preceding thought is excluded, which 
exclusion again gives no aid in finding a substitute. It remains only to 
put “ not ” with “ less, ” obtaining in full: “ The cable was strained. From 
that not less it held firm.” 
In testing this connective formula, let it be borne in mind that the coun¬ 
ter-cause is in the present case merely a cause that doesn’t work, an ineffec¬ 
tive cause. Now a moment’s reflection will convince one that, before the 
mind begins to deal with ineffective causes, it must have become familiar 
with causes through their effectivity. This is but another way of saying 
that, in the order of acquisition or development, the effective cause precedes 
the ineffective. Such being the case, with the well-known habits of lan¬ 
guage in mind, it is eminently probable that the connective mechanism of 
the ineffective is a mere modification of that already in use with the effec¬ 
tive. Turning for a moment to the latter, suppose that as the result of strain 
the cable breaks. I might prefer to say with some reserve, “From that less 
(desto weniger) it held firm.” If now I wish to adjust this mechanism to 
usage with an inefficient cause, I am likely enough, as countless examples 
might show, to imagine that everything will be well, if I merely thrust in 
