Expression of Thought Connection. 
19 
The remaining element, the phrase “ on account of ” or its 
equivalent "from,” can best be appreciated after some exam¬ 
ination of the preposition. This thought-element, like the verb, 
is a relation-namer. But it differs from the verb in being em¬ 
ployed in the special case in which a relation and a last term 
are combined as an adjunct of what stands thereto as a first 
term j 1 e. g. “ The book on the table. ” In this phrase “ book ” and 
“ table “ are plainly a first and a last term and the relation be¬ 
tween them is expressed by “ on. ” This relation and the last 
term are taken together as an attribute or accident of the first. 
That is, the book is characterized by “ on-the-tableness. ” In 
Subject and predicate (first and last terms) are conceived as of primary 
importance; other elements are noted as “ mere relations.” In opposition 
to such valuation it may be observed that the habitual effort of the mind 
is to find relations. In an advanced stage of mental development we may 
indeed start with a relation and institute a search for terms to fit it. This 
process is, however, unusual. As a rule we are not finders of terms for 
relations. We are finders of relations for terms. Man might indeed be 
distinguished as the relation-finding animal. So far then as results are 
more important than data, so far in the thinker’s mind the relation out¬ 
values the other terms. 
Suppose now that a thought conceived as a unit is to be presented by 
the names for its parts. It is plainly possible to use as nucleus either first 
or last term, distinguishing it by its relation to the other term. But such 
a method violates the thinker’s estimate of values. The proper method is 
rather to use as nucleus the relation and to distinguish this relation by 
the terms between which it holds. Having said for instance that 6 ex¬ 
ceeds 4, if I wish to distinctly present this thought as a unit, I use the 
phrase “ the superiority of 6 to 4,” not “the 4-exceeding 6,” not “the 
by-6-exceeded 4.” 
So also in the present case, having stated analytically that “ He invited 
me;” having obviously expressed by “ invited ” a relation (that of inviter to 
invited) between him and me, which can be learned from no other source; if 
now I wish to distinctly present my thought again as a unit, but by means 
of its part-namers, my descriptive phrase will be of some such form as 
“ his inviting me,” “ his invitation of me,” or, “ my invitation by him.” 
1 1 believe that sufficient testing will show an opportunity to apply here 
Morgan’s excellent distinction between focal and marginal consciousness; 
that, when several relations enter into one thought-structure, that which is 
dominant (or centrally, focally conscious) will be found to be always ex¬ 
pressed by the principal verb; that the preposition will be found to name 
in all cases a relation of a subordinate, eccentric or marginal character. 
