22 Given—Meaning and Function of Thought- Connectives . 
in its reality, does not need to be proven. For, without such 
proof, it is plain that in some way all essential elements of 
thought are presented by the sentence ” I came. “ That is, the 
places for terms are all preempted. If therefore a new element 
is to be added, it must take its place as an adjunct. 
The connective is then adjunctive, but, as the sequel will 
show, of a somewhat peculiar type. The adjunct as a rule is 
coupled in the mind with a single term, as shown by previous 
examples. But in the case before us the adjunct is coupled 
with a whole thought. It does not really belong with “ com¬ 
ing, ” except so far as the coming is my own, as distinguished 
from the coming of any other person. 
The adjunct of this sort may be known as a thought-adjunct 
in distinction from the ordinary or term-adjunct. With special 
forms for term-adjuncts languages are generally well-provided, 
even differentiating sometimes the adjunct of one term (e. g. 
adjective as adjunct of first or last term) from that of another 
(e. g. adverb as mid-term-adjunct). But in special forms for 
thought-adjuncts language seems to be quite deficient. When 
therefore it is necessary to express the adjunct of a whole 
thought, that variety of term-adjunct is used as a make-shift, 
which seems most nearly to meet requirements. The variety 
elected is the adjunct of the mid-term, the term, that is, which 
expresses relation. In other words the chosen expression of 
thought-adjunct is the adverb, in its stricter sense of verb-lim¬ 
iter . 1 The reason for this choice is in part the fact that the 
relation, as indicated above, is by far the most important 
thought-element. 
1 The use of make-shifts is one of the most common linguistic phenom¬ 
ena, is indeed one of the most important agents of linguistic progress. As 
the boy makes use of his jack-knife now as screw-driver, now as gimlet 
and again as hammer, so a word designed for a particular purpose is forced 
to serve, in the lack of a better word, the different purpose of the moment. 
To illustrate for the special case in hand, suppose I wish to characterize 
a thought as not my own, but that of another — a zoologist, the thought 
being that mastodons are pachyderms. I do not say that the mastodons 
of his mind are pachyderms; for this is telling you my own opinion of 
what he ranks as mastodons. Nor do I say that mastodons are pachyderms 
of his mind; for this is telling you my opinion of mastodons in terms of 
