182 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. 
thought of (or the thought thereof) would be an organic whole 
composed of sub-wholes mutually subordinated—the recogni¬ 
tion quod esset unum . So also the act by which I build to¬ 
gether details into thoughts and interlock the latter, and my 
recognition that collectively the details form a whole whose sub¬ 
wholes are perspectively distributed in foreground, background 
and middle distance—these two acts are no less distinct and 
separate, than are the act by which I build my house in detail, 
and my recognition that it consists of basement first and second 
stories—of front and back and middle rooms—of right wing, 
left wing, center. 
The difference between the linguistic act and the perspective 
survey, is the difference between my doings and my revision of 
my doings—a revision complete and final, or partial' and in¬ 
terpolated. Collective syntax,—or say the recognition of com¬ 
plex thought as more or less consisting of masses—reflects the 
perspective survey or revision of linguistic doings, to the neglect 
of doings surveyed. Particular syntax reflects what may be 
called the molecular structure of thought—the ultimate ele¬ 
ments, their particular thought-memberships and, what is of 
extreme importance, the ever recurrent interlocking of thoughts, 
effected by their common factors. 
Thought-perspective is readily sensed aright and at will by 
him who has rightly sensed the mutual bearing of all details. 
The woods are easily seen by him who comes out from the trees. 
If my house and yours are alike in detail, they will also 
seem alike when viewed perspectively at corresponding angles. 
The converse does not hold. The details unperceived in like 
perspectives, may not agree on close examination. Collective 
syntax then is both unnecessary and only in part effective. Par¬ 
ticular syntax on the one hand satisfies all needs; on the other 
hand it is altogether indispensable to complete appreciation of 
linguistic operations. 
Particular syntax, moreover, is all that the sentence directly 
reveals. To illustrate, “I used my feet because I could not 
fly/ 7 the thought expressed by which is plainly made up of 
two, which together form a third, as if I had said “My inabil¬ 
ity to fly—caused—my use of my feet. 77 These two, in my 
