130 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. 
In mentioning tlie book’s location on the newel post, I bad, 
however, a further motive. Assuming, indeed, that you did 
not know the said location, I declared it. Also, however, I in¬ 
tended the book’s location to distinguish a particular book for 
you from other books. That is, in such distinguishing, I in¬ 
tended what is expressed by “(which) is on the newel post” to 
serve as means to the end proposed by “I want the book,” (See 
page 128). In short, I intended it, as now regarded, not for 
its own sake, but for the sake of helping out another statement. 
In the now considered aspect, the locative thought is then dis¬ 
tinctly lateral. Accordingly, reviving the conclusion of the just 
preceding paragraph, the thought expressed by “which is on 
the newel post” is lateral and central. 
As indicated in the examination of case (4), I cannot regard 
the lateral and central positions of a thought as simultaneous, 
but only as successive. As to the order of these positions, it 
seems at first to be determined by the early appearing assertive 
“is.” Tor assertion, which may be accepted when genuine as 
the sign of thought centrality, is made by “is” before the ap¬ 
pearance of “on the newel post.” Accordingly, location (of 
the book) which without assertion would, in thought perspec¬ 
tive, surely take a position exclusively lateral to my desire for 
the book, appears to be forced at once by the assertive “is” to 
the perspective center. 
Apparently then assertion, or say the element of belief, comes 
into the mental current very inconveniently—not as the con¬ 
tinued flow or onpour of the mental stream, but as an independ¬ 
ent affluent or inpour, as may be indicated by the following 
diagram: 
(1) I vouch for desiring the book (distinguished by) ) 
>• location on the newel post, 
(2) I vouch for) 
in which (2) “I vouch for” seems to prearrange location as 
in thought perspective central, before it even has a chance to 
assume a position lateral to my desire. 
In English, indeed, this embarrassing interpretation is quite 
unnecessary, the “is” being sometimes assertive and sometimes 
unassertive, and therefore capable of being taken first without 
the assertive value—wdiich later may be added. But in more 
