16 Owen—Meaning and Function of Thought- Connectives. 
uncertain whether George slew the dragon or the dragon slew 
George. That is, the function of either noun, its choice of 
position as first or last term, is uncertain. This uncertainty 
is in no degree relieved by the presence of the word “ and. ” 
Also “and” has no influence in fixing “slew” as mid-term. 
That is, the conjunction is not to be classified as functional. 1 
Second , the thought-connective might be associational; e. g. 
“ And large exceedingly fierce men dragons slew. ” The func¬ 
tion of the idea named by “ exceedingly” is clear. It must be 
taken as an adjunct of one of the first term’s adjuncts, either 
with “ large ” or with “ fierce. ” But its choice between these 
two, that is to say its association, is uncertain. This uncer¬ 
tainty is in no degree relieved by the presence of the word 
“and.” That is, this conjunction is not to be classified as as¬ 
sociational. 2 
Third , the thought-connective might be independent of the 
rest of the sentence — a foreign substance in the verbal organ¬ 
ism; e. g. “And George the dragon slew.” The word “and,” 
if irrelevant, is required to join what follows to what has pre¬ 
ceded, while itself completely disconnected from what follows. 
It seems unnecessary to argue that this is impossible. The 
moment that union ceases between “ and ” and what follows, the 
union between what follows and what precedes must also cease, 
unless maintained by some other means than any afforded by 
“ and. ” That is, the conjunction cannot be classified as inde¬ 
pendent. 3 
1 The conjunction obviously gives no instruction as to its own function. 
2 The conjunction obviously gives no instruction as to its own associa¬ 
tion. 
3 It might be claimed that, even though the word “ and ” be not itself a 
joiner, it shows that thoughts are to be joined by the hearer or have been 
joined by the speaker; that is, “ and ” might be either an order to join or 
a statement of junction. While this view contains much truth and the 
appearance of more, it shrinks in value when we find no indication whether 
a statement or an order be designed. The absence of such indication sug¬ 
gests at least the sub-importance to the speaker of what he omits to name. 
In illustration let the thought expressed by our example be fully devel¬ 
oped. Using first the the mandatory value of “ and,” the sentence “ And 
George the dragon slew ” does not mean “ Join George the dragon slew to 
