Owen—Hybrid Parts of Speech. 
143 
arranged on the linguistic shelves, I find one piece of goods 
complete, as indicated by “The doctor wishes to eat,” and a pair 
of remnants (i. e., what is suggested by “Catherine” and by 
“meat”) distinctly unconnected with the piece and even with 
each other. In short, to avoid a breach of integrity, it must 
be recognized that “to eat,” in addition to its function with 
“The doctor wishes,” serves to name the relation-forming ac¬ 
tion—or, say, the action-formed relation (see pages 153-154) 
between “Catherine” and “meat.” That is, although becom¬ 
ing centrally a noun, “to eat” continues laterally a verb, some¬ 
what as Victoria, in becoming Empress of India, did not cease 
to be Queen of England . 26 
As however for convenience the idea of eating was conceived 
to take a membership made vacant for it in the central thought, 
it is consistent now to say that although it does so, it does not 
in so doing cease to be attended by its fellows. 
It would however be carrying this figure of speech too far, 
to say that the lateral factor, in becoming a member of central 
thought, has introduced its lateral fellows with it. Just as, 
in joining hands with you and Brown, I become a member of 
a momentary union, without dissolving another union with m 3 7 
children, who are clutching the skirts of my coat, so also the 
centro-lateral factor establishes central fellowship, without a 
loss of lateral fellowship. But just as the children do not be¬ 
come a part of the group consisting of men, but only of the 
larger group consisting of men and children, so also the lateral 
fellows of the centro-lateral factor do not become a part of the 
central thought, but only of the larger centro-lateral thought. 
Somewhat thus I would reconcile the antagonism between 
grammatical “lumpers” and “splitters”—between those who call 
the object of “wishes” “all that follows,” and those who call 
it “to eat” alone—by saying that the object is “to eat” attended 
by the other lateral elements. 
26 So also it might be shown that, if either “Catherine” or “meat” 
were omitted, although by a closer analysis three terms might still be 
found—as in “Catherine to eat” interpreted as “Catherine to use food”— 
the thought so constituted would be an unintended thought, and might 
be ranked with no thought at all, in the expressional purpose of the 
speaker. 
