128 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. 
single musical rendition. It will doubtless be felt that contin¬ 
uity or singleness of such a type does not diminish the individ¬ 
uality of either melody, and that still less is either made a 
part of the other. In short, two melodies still exist. 
That the double statement: “I wrote my wife (who) is in 
Hew York’ 7 is quite analogous, appears most clearly when this 
statement is compared with “I wrote my daughter (who) is in 
Hew York, 77 of which I stipulate that her location in Hew York 
is known to you, and is by me intended merely to distinguish 
one daughter from another—as, therefore, auxiliary to the ef¬ 
fectuation of a single expressional purpose inadequately indi¬ 
cated by the mere “1 wrote my daughter. 77 In short, my pur¬ 
pose is precisely what I should have expressed by “I wrote 
Amelia, 77 had you been acquainted with my daughters 7 names— 
an expression in which my singleness of purpose is apparent. 
On the contrary “I wrote my wife (who) is in Hew York, 77 
is plainly quite analogous to the confluent rendition of “Dixie” 
and “Old Hundred, 77 exhibiting two self-sufficient thoughts— 
two independent expressional purposes—location in Hew York 
by no means being intended to distinguish one wife from an¬ 
other. 
In short, the difference between the statement as to wife and 
the statement as to daughter, is what I have elsewhere sought 
to indicate by the words “polyphrastic 77 and monophrastic. 77 
On the other hand, the difference between “I wrote my wife. 
My wife (or she) is in Hew York 77 and “I wrote my wife 
(who) is in Hew York 77 is unessential, consisting vocally in the 
omission by the latter of (1) the second “my wife, 77 (2) the 
fall of pitch and (3) the pause—and, mentally, in a failure to 
think a second time the idea expressed by “my wife. 77 
This difference, to use a further illustration, appears to me 
exactly parallel to that between the algebraic “a = b. b = c” 
and “a = b = c”, in which latter neither of the former equa¬ 
tions of necessity forfeits individuality or becomes a part of 
the other. 
In what is expressed by “I wrote my wife (who) is in Hew 
York 77 it cannot indeed be assumed that constituent thoughts 
are of equal intrinsic importance any more safely than, of two 
