164 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. 
In the second place, the verbal nouns, in their verbal activity, 
^continue to express a relation, which is lateral as compared 
with that expressed by the governing word (principal verb), but 
which is central as compared with other relations expressed by 
the possibly extended substantive phrase. To illustrate, in “I 
caused him to employ Italians from Pittsburg,” the governing 
verb exhibits the central relation of cause to effect between “I” 
and what I caused, while “employ” exhibits the lateral relation 
of employer to employee between “him” and “Italians.” But 
the latter relation is central as compared with the relation 
(say, of thing to source) exhibited between “Italians” and 
“Pittsburg” by “ from.” 
By further illustration it might be shown that within the 
bounds of lateral thought, however much extended, the relation 
expressed by the verbal noun is more central than that ex¬ 
pressed by what is ranked as a preposition—or any other part 
of speech; and this, in my own differentiation of the parts of 
speech, I should accept as entitling the verbal noun in lateral 
service to its commonly admitted verbal rank. 
The idea-trio of the infinitive phrase may sometimes seem to he a 
duo. Three terms however still remain in fact, although it be at times 
not fully certain (and less important) exactly what the obscured idea 
(more commonly the final term) may be. To illustrate, in “The 
doctor wishes me to eat,” the thought condensedly expressed in two 
terms by the infinitive phrase, may also be expressed in three terms 
by 
me—to eat—food, 
me—to perform—(the act of) eating, 
me—to be—eating, 
in which the infinitives in turn suggest relations of eater-to-what-he- 
eats (not for instance the relation expressed by “enjoy” or “digest”), 
of actor-to-his-own-action, of actor-to-his-action regarded rather as rela¬ 
tion of substance-to-attribute (or accident). 
Sometimes it is the first term that is obscured. In “Je fis batir une 
maison” the actor (the builder of the house) may be understood (e. g. 
“some one”) or, as I am rather inclined to believe, entirely unheeded. 
According to the latter view, the first and last terms of the infinitive 
sional purpose, however amplified, may be accepted as the linguistic 
norm. The merely apparent exceptions offered by an extraneous state¬ 
ment interlocked or merely parenthetical, as well as those afforded by 
-the use of verb-forms sometimes assertive but not so at the moment, 
will be considered as they occur. For assertion following non-assertion, 
■see pages 129-134. 
