Owen—Hybrid Parts of Speech. 
133 
meantime, lias been waiting its turn or has been, so to put it, 
stored away for later usage. 
The difficulty of storing over-many prematurely presented 
ideas, or storing such too long a time, while receiving and 
building together other ideas, may partially explain the re¬ 
stricted popularity of Latin poetry. When, too, the “periodic 
structure,” as in the German sentence, runs to overgrowth, the 
withholding of one idea, which is but another way of express¬ 
ing the premature exhibition of intervening ideas, produces 
excessive difficulty, discouragement, disgust. Barring, how¬ 
ever, the cases in which such difficulty becomes insuperable, I 
hold that, be the order of idea-presentation what it may, the 
mind in thought construction may, and often does, take up 
ideas in an altogether different order. 
Applying this doctrine to case (5), I conceive that the ele¬ 
ment of personal belief (which in a carefully inflected lan¬ 
guage would be unambiguously expressed by “is”) while en¬ 
tering consciousness immediately on the utterance of the “is,” 
by no means enters into the construction of thought until a 
later moment. In “I want the book (wffiich) is on the newel 
post” I find accordingly that construction is effected precisely 
as in “I want the book distinguished by position on the newel 
post is vouched for by me.” That is, in “I want the book 
(which) is on the newel post,” the thought expressed by “book 
(which) is on the newel post,” is at the outset lateral as com¬ 
pared with “I want the book,” and subsequently central on its 
own account. 
]l!ow, perspective relations having been once at the outset ad¬ 
justed, whatever either party to them does or does not do at a 
later moment, may be ranked as “after business hours” and al¬ 
together independent of the inter-subordination of business co¬ 
workers. Accordingly I rank the ultimate centrality (or in¬ 
dividual self-sufficiency) of “book (which) is on the newel post” 
as independent of and quite irrelevant to the centrality pecu¬ 
liar to “I want the book.” This ultimate centrality is then an 
incident which no more affects the mutual perspective rela¬ 
tions established independently of its occurrence, than they 
are affected by the appearance of my desire for the book as 
