148 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. 
What is seen is sensed as rather one phenomenon than two— 
rather Catherine’s gastronomic doings w T ith the apples, than 
her performance of the eating plus what may be indicated by 
the words “the eating affected the apples.” 
Perhaps, indeed, on hearing only so much as “The doctor 
saw Catherine.you for a moment imagine “Cather¬ 
ine” to be the object of “saw”—to be, that is, as well as “The 
doctor,” one of the terms between which there holds a relation 
of seer to seen; and this interpretation would require any fur¬ 
ther added element of thought to be in a further relation with, 
it might be, “Catherine.” But the appearance of “eat” at once 
dispels this illusion; “eat” displaces “Catherine” from the 
membership so prematurely assumed, and takes its place as 
^object of “saw,” while serving still as mid-term, or relation- 
namer, with “Catherine” and “apples.” 
An occasion for such analysis does however occur in “The 
doctor saw Catherine eating apples.” In this expression, “Cath¬ 
erine” (again at first, but this time rightly and finally) enters 
central syntax as the object of “saw.” As “eating” comes up- 
•on the scene, being in any well-inflected language formally in¬ 
capacitated for service as the central first or last or mid-term, 
it cannot like “eat” (above) displace either “Catherine” or any 
other central term, but must, as warrant for any affiliation with 
the central thought, exhibit a relation with some central term— 
in the present case, a relation with “Catherine.” 
How thus far “eating” has not been recognized as in any re¬ 
lation with whatsoever it may be, but as itself exhibiting the 
relation (that of eater to food) between “Catherine” and “ap¬ 
ples.” So soon, however, as “apples” (in the special attention 
given first to the central syntax of “Catherine” and next to the 
relation of “eating” with “Catherine”) be for an instant un¬ 
heeded, “eating” naturally ceases to be regarded as furnishing 
a relation between “Catherine” and “apples,” “Catherine” and 
“eating” being rather recognized as in the relation of actor to 
his own act. 
Also “eating” and “apples” are recognized as in the relation 
“■of action to its own actee (object), “apples” being thus admit- 
