192 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. 
mj son 
The doctor - desires - (that) eat 
apples 
in which eating, recognized as rather a relation-forming action, 
is a last term in the central “The doctor desires eating’ 7 —and 
in which eating, recognized as rather an action-formed relation 
(Compare pp. 153-154) is mid-term in the lateral “my son eat 
apples.” 55 
Of the several verbal-noun constructions, I do not mean to 
argue that, in the exhibition of thought, they operate without 
55 For the verb at first unassertive but secondarily assertive, see 
pp. 129-133, the indicative form in such a case being properly em¬ 
ployed; for the first-required, unassertive verbal value is readily in¬ 
ferred from context, while the second, assertive value can only be 
known from its expression. 
By way of further comment on the subjunctive used as a noun, I 
offer, as an illustration of the most refractory type, “It is desirable that 
you take exercise.” Of this I admit that, in such thinking as pre¬ 
cedes the special thinking for expression, your taking exercise is, in a 
blended form, the intended subject. I also admit that, after the com- 
municational act is ended, and independently thereof, your taking ex¬ 
ercise may blend again into a mental unit, felt again to be the in¬ 
tended subject. Moreover the “It” is operative in the interest of that 
subject, as holder of its place, or even as announcer that in syntax 
it ought collectively or blendedly to operate as one—not however ex¬ 
pressing it in any aspect, and not even effectively prefiguring it; for 
in your mind the intended subject makes no kind of appearance, until 
exhibited in detail. 
Giving now to “that” its original demonstrative value (or letting it 
merely act as an instructional sign that your taking exercise must 
somehow operate as a substantive element—such a sign however in¬ 
troducing nothing into the structure of thought), I have in succession 
the substantive “It”, the substantive “that” and the substantive “you 
take exercise”. Now the subject place is taken by “It,” all other 
places also being filled. In order then to enter syntax, “that” must 
obviously be to “It” in one of the several relations suggested by “ap¬ 
position”—say the relation of equivalence. Also the would-be sub¬ 
ject (and therefore substantive) “you take exercise” must be in similar 
relation with “that” or with “It” (if, as above suggested, “that” be 
ignored) or must be directly subject of “is” (if also “It” be ignored). 
It is required then in any case to use a thought, while in the very act 
of its construction, as an element of another thought. The difficulty 
of infinitive syntax, about which centered the discussion of pp. 165-184, 
is accordingly repeated. No recourse seems available except, as be¬ 
fore, to enter subjunctive thought into other thought as a nucleary 
factor, its verb in the present case becoming in more central syntax 
a noun, while in lateral syntax, as still a verb, it maintains association 
with a subject and an object. 
