2 Owen—Meaning and Function of Thought-Connectives. 
language of daily life. And what, it may be asked, would be 
said of mathematicians, if they neglected quantity and number— 
if they confined themselves to the history of plus and minus or 
to the comparative study of these symbols in their use by 
different peoples? 
The importance of such investigation is, doubtless, in general 
language greatly increased. But that which general language 
stands for is also greater than that which mathematical symbols 
stand for. If then the special language of mathematics must 
not eclipse the special thought expressed, so also the student 
of general language should keep in view the general thought 
of humanity. Thought-study and word-study are two treat¬ 
ments of the same problem. It is in these days required that 
each shall use the aid of the other. 
Judged by this commandment of the new linguistics, philol¬ 
ogy has left undone some things which, as linguistic leader, it 
ought to have done. Grammar has done much that it ought not 
to have done. Its blind have followed its blind with unfaltering 
constancy. The pitiful confusion of this pseudo-science offers a 
convenient introduction to the present subject in the following 
quoted definitions: “ To be is the copula;” “To seem is a 
copulative verb; ” “ And is a copulative conjunction; ” “ Or is a 
disjunctive conjunction.” Of this absurd crescendo the last 
term, “the disjunctive conjunction,” is specially noteworthy. 
This no doubt is that long-mourned offspring of classic imagi¬ 
nation, the “ lucus a non lucendo. ” “ Or ” is ranked as a joiner 
because it disjoins. Again the meaning of a copulative con¬ 
junction depends upon the meaning of a copula. But upon the 
latter there is, in grammar, no consensus; on the contrary there 
is conspicuous disagreement. 
A single case of such confusion on the part of those in lin¬ 
guistic authority might warrant a break for liberty. Nor is 
precedent wanting. Chemistry and astronomy broke loose from 
alchemy and astrology. Even during the present generation 
almost every science has changed its data, its methods and its 
terminology. With such tendencies it would be surprising, if 
the spirit of the time endured much longer the absurdities per¬ 
petrated centuries since by men of scholastic bias, often backed 
