24 Owen—Meaning and Function of Thought - Connectives. 
sea ” is paraphrased by the words, “ a submarine cave. ” In 
both examples the very word- and sentence-structure shows that 
relation and last term are combined, and that the combination 
is conceived in the new attributive relation to the first term. 
Analogously, the relation named in the word “ therefore ” (by 
the element “for” or “from”) and the reinstated thought 
(expressed in substantive value by the element “there”) com¬ 
bine into a total, which is conceived anew as in the attributive 
relation with “ came." This attributive relation, being easily 
inferred, is not expressed. In other words, the elements com¬ 
bined under the word “ therefore ” constitute an adjunct in the 
last thought. Or, in grammatical parlance, “ therefore, ” with 
the value of “ from that, ” is construed like a prepositional 
phrase; it is adverbially used; it limits “came. 1,1 
The argument for the adverb-theory, thus far general and 
largely of an a-priori character will be followed by a process of 
testing. Meantime observe that the word “ therefore ” and many 
other thought-connectives contain an etymological element of 
so-called demonstrative character, which has been accounted for 
by giving it reinstative value. But in still other connectives, 
e. g. “consequently,” no such element appears. Yet the mental 
total is the same, whichever connective be employed. By the 
use of the word “consequently” precisely the same result is 
reached as by the use of the phrase “ in consequence of that. ” 
That is, in either case a preceding thought is reinstated. Two 
explanations of the word “consequently ” are, therefore, possi¬ 
ble. It may be claimed that by multiple symbolization it actu¬ 
ally expresses both relation and reinstated thought. Or it may 
be claimed that “ consequently ” names only relation and that, a 
first term being thereto necessary, the hearer’s mind must sup¬ 
ply such first term for itself. For plainly the relation between 
two thoughts cannot be felt with one thought in the mind and 
1 It may add clearness to this opinion to cite one of the distincter formu¬ 
lations of antagonistic opinion. And none seems more distinct than that 
set forth by Girault-Duvivier, on page 895 of his “ Grammaire des Gram- 
maires.” “ The conjunction differs from the adverb. It does not modify 
a verb (nor an adjective, nor an adverb).” “ It differs from the preposi¬ 
tion. It does not express the relation of one thing with another.” 
