Single Relations Between Thoughts. 
39 
As previously indicated, the boundary lines between relations 
are frequently crossed, the speaker electing one class, even 
when another is more conspicuous. Thus the speaker may choose 
to regard cause and effect as concordant group-members; e. g. 
“The cable was severely strained. And it broke.” Conversely, 
counter-cause and effect may be ranked as discordant group- 
members; e. g. “The cable was severely strained. But it held 
firm. ” 
Of the word “however” the first part, namely “how,” has the 
value of “ in any case. ” This is merely emphasized in “ any¬ 
how. ” The second part, namely “ ever, ” is a mere broadener of 
indefiniteness, as appears in the use of “ who ” and “ whoever, ” 
a negative, to match the change from effectiveness to non-effectiveness* 
Thus I reach, when dealing with an ineffective cause, the form “ The cable 
was strained. From that not less it held.” 
Now this “ not less ” might be taken as suggesting either “ as much ” or 
“ more.” But this latter plainly violates the possibilities of the case. Even 
“as much” is seen to be a mere emphasizer of what is, in its opposi¬ 
tion to what might have been. It is therefore comparatively neglected. 
On the other hand the attention which has been directed to the possibili¬ 
ties of the case develops with ease the fact that the relation conceived can 
be only that of effect to counter-cause; and the phrase “from that” is 
henceforth in this formula associated with that relation. 
This then is but one of the many cases in which a word’s particular re¬ 
lation-naming power is determined by its association with phenomena whose 
relation is obvious; one also of those in which the same formula has on differ¬ 
ent occasions very different meanings. Thus “ while,” naming strictly time- 
inclusion, acquires in English the meaning “ though ” (in spite of); but 
in German it reaches that of “because.” “Pour” in French means 
sometimes “ for the purpose of,” sometimes “because of ” and sometimes 
again “in spite of.” So too the English “ for ” introduces purpose (e. g. 
“a push for liberty”), reflects upon cause (e. g. “imprisonment for 
theft ”), or names antagonism (e. g. “a man’s a man for a’ that ”). Further 
cases offer later. 
The word “ nevertheless” is employed in an interesting range of nega¬ 
tive sentences; e. g. “ The cable was severely strained. Nevertheless it did 
not break.” And here it is worth while to note the absurdity of the often- 
uttered doctrine that two negatives necessarily destroy each other, leaving 
an affirmative. According to this doctrine “ not ” and “ never ” should 
cancel each other, leaving: “ On that account the less did it break.” 
The whole value then becomes: “ The cable was severely strained. It held 
the more firmly on that account.” 
