Expression of Thought Connection. 
21 
ing, favored my coming, caused my coming. ” The actual rela¬ 
tion, expressed by “from,” is plainly developed by passing in 
mind from “ my coming ” back to “ his invitation. ” This rela¬ 
tion would be asserted by saying: “My coming was from the 
invitation, on account of it, caused by it. ” In short, “ I came 
from or for that. ” 
It appears then that the word “ therefore ” has two simultan¬ 
eous meanings. It names a reverse relation between two 
thoughts. Of these two thoughts it reinstates the former. 
In remains now to be seen in what way these two meanings 
are structurally employed. To determine this it should be noted 
that the structure of the second thought is the outcome of a 
compromise between two conflicting desires. The speaker 
wishes, on one hand, to assert “ his coming. ” On the other 
hand, he wishes to assert that “ this coming was the result of 
an invitation. ” Both these wishes he might easily realize by 
using two separate sentences as follows. (1) “ I came. ” (2) 
“ That was from his invitation. ” But linguistic economy urges 
the reduction of these two structures to one. This result can be 
obtained only by making one of them some element of the other. 1 
On the one hand, the assertion that “ I came ” might be sac¬ 
rificed, (1) becoming an element of (2). This would lead to such 
a sentence as “ My coming was from his invitation ” or “ My com¬ 
ing was from that, (therefore). ” On the other hand the assertion 
that “ the coming was from the invitation ” may be sacrificed, 
(2) becoming an element of (1). The election of this alterna¬ 
tive leads to such a sentence as “ I came from his invitation — 
from that — therefore. ” 
It needs no demonstration to show that in the elected form¬ 
ula the two words, “ I” and “ came,” express by some means 
three terms. The word “ I ” names an actor. The word 
“ came ” names an action. These two have something to do 
with each other, are in some relation; otherwise they could 
not constitute a thought. That the relation is that of actor 
to his own action and that it is, by multiple symbolization, 
expressed in the word “ came, ” along with the speaker’s belief 
Unification by common factor has been eliminated from the present 
field. 
