46 Owen—Meaning and Function of Thought-Connectives. 
II. MULTIPLE RELATIONS BETWEEN THOUGHTS. 
Several relations obtain between a latter thought and one for¬ 
mer thought . 
It is evident that more than one mental transit may be made 
between the same two thoughts; that each transit may develop 
a relation more or less different from that obtained by the others; 
that the speaker may elect to express more than one of these 
relations; e. g, “ A = B X C. Now therefore also C = A B. ” 
“ Now ” indicates relation generally and serves as a note of warn¬ 
ing to watch for relation of a more definite character. “ There¬ 
fore ” names the effect-to-cause relation, which is obviously of 
prime importance. “ Also ” ranks the following statement as 
one of a group of truths —• puts it on a footing of parity with 
its predecessor. 1 
To such heaping-up of connectives English is not particularly 
prone. It is much more affected by Greek and German. Its 
investigation promises much psychological interest, but is hardly 
necessary to the present discussion; for the method pursued is 
apparently the same, whether one or many connectives be em¬ 
ployed. 
Several relations obtain , each between a latter thought and one 
of two or more former thoughts. 
It has already been noted that the connective may reinstate 
part only of a preceding thought. Such use of the connective 
lies without the present field. But it is interesting to observe 
that this usage may coexist with that which has been specially 
considered; e. g. “ My brother being invited, declined. My 
sister was most strongly urged. Nevertheless she also de¬ 
clined.” “Nevertheless” puts her declining as opposed to her 
1 It is pertinent to ask, at this point, what, to the current understanding 
of connectives, may be the motive for their simultaneous use. Is it doubt¬ 
ful whether the joining process will work? Is it sought to insure results 
by a multiplicity of conjunctive efforts? Is language at the stage of develop¬ 
ment characterized in medicine by the use of the shot-gun prescription ? 
Or is a single bond of union too feeble? Must it be supplemented by other 
bonds of possibly equal weakness? Has conjunctive prudence learned of 
the spider to strengthen its bond by multiplying cooperative filaments? 
