32 Owen—Meaning and Function of Thought- Connectives. 
CLASS III. RELATION OF EQUIVALENT TO EQUIVALENT. 
This class employs the connectives in short, in a word, in other 
WORDS, OR, RATHER. 
The first three of these forms have, in the now-considered 
usage, lost their original special meanings, and coalesced in 
meaning and function with “ or, ” which will, accordingly, be 
chosen as type; e. g. “A is the father of B’s father. Or A 
is the grandfather of B. ” In exploiting this example it should 
be noted first that, historically, “or” is the same as “other,” 
symbolizing then the relation of difference. But, in the now- 
considered use of “or,” this difference has been restricted in 
scope to difference in expression or form. At the same time it 
has joined to itself the idea of substantial equivalence in mean¬ 
ing. In short, it is merely a relation of the type which I have 
elsewhere described as composite. 
Such being the relation-naming value of “or,” it remains to 
note its reinstative value. This may be readily made to appear 
by putting the relation only as attribute to the verb, and not¬ 
ing what further term it requires. Neglecting then the ele¬ 
ment of form-difference, as obvious and unimportant, let “ sub¬ 
stantial equivalence ” name the relation. This relation and some 
last term are to be used as attributive or adjunct with the last 
thought. As this adjunct in practice associates itself with the 
verb, it should have the adverbial form, “ equivalently. ” This, 
however, is not all. In the present case and many others (e. 
g. concordance, similarity above), as soon as a relation with its 
last term is treated as an attribute of its first term, it is need¬ 
lessly further conceived as itself in some relation with its last 
term. Thus, the form “A equals B” plainly expresses two terms 
and their relation. But, in the form “A is equal to B,” the 
speaker, having made equality an attribute of A, goes on to feign 
a new relation, expressed by “to,” between. “ equality ” and “B. ” 
That is, the equality which characterizes A belongs to B. Simi¬ 
larly, our typical example is readjusted as follows: “A is the 
grandfather of B equivalently to something. ” Emphasizing now 
the “something,” it is plain that a last term is required and is 
to be supplied by the reinstatement of the preceding thought. 
