196 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. 
rather implies 57 than expresses the qualitative relation indicated 
by “characterize.” On the other hand, the lateral “destruc¬ 
tiveness affecting” adds to “destructiveness” the relation be¬ 
tween it and what is destroyed. 
Thinking still of “destructiveness” as quality attributively 
used—that is, in this case as an adjective—and thinking also 
of the “affect” relation, but not twice thinking the “destruc¬ 
tiveness,” and not expressing its qualitative relation with “in¬ 
sects,” I use the word “destructive” to exhibit both my think¬ 
ings, as in the diagram: 
Harris studied insects 
destructive 
plants, 
in which I intend the “destructive” to take the place which 
might be taken by “destroying.” That the meanings of “de¬ 
structive” and “destroying” are identical, I do not insist, ad¬ 
mitting that “destructive” rather indicates what poses as a 
quality regarded in its active consequences, while “destroying” 
indicates an action posing in a qualitative relation. This dif¬ 
ference indeed I regard as the raison d’etre of the doubtless 
verbally functionating adjective “destructive.” 
In English this adjective operates peculiarly, requiring 
change of order and union with its object. Accordingly, 
“Harris studied plant-destructive insects,” in which, allowing 
for some dimness of syntax-perception, I regard “destructive” 
as an adjective to “insects,” while also verbal in its govern¬ 
ment of “plant,” because containing in its meaning the relation 
of action to its own actee. 58 
57 One reason for supposing this may be found in the use of adjective 
words in the predicate. Thus in “Roses are red,” the relation of ob¬ 
ject to its own quality—subsisting between “Roses” and redness— 
finds expression, as it appears to me, in “are”, which means to me “are 
characterized by”, the proper “conversion” of the proposition taking the 
form of “Redness characterizes roses.” If then in such usage the ad¬ 
jective does not assume the burden of relation-expression, it would 
seem to be an a priori probability that also, in “Red roses are not 
rare,” it does not do so. 
58 A precedent for supposing the verbally functionating adjective in 
such a case to incorporate in its meaning the relation of action to 
actee, may be found in the general consciousness of language students, 
who with the utmost pains distinguish active from neuter verbs. 
