200 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. 
plants” of (3), which obviously, thus isolated, would not have 
linguistic existence. Either of these expressions must, to live., 
attach itself to another expression that is self-supporting—that 
is, the expression of a judgment. Of “destroying plants,” 
which coheres by virtue of the action-to-object relation between 
destruction and plants, the element “destroying” clings to “in¬ 
sects” (in “Harris studied insects”) by virtue of the relation 
of object-t o-quality conceived between “insects” and “destroy¬ 
ing.” Procedure of the subjunctive “destroy” I hold to be 
the same. 
As argued in the examination of Relatives (see “Revision,” 
etc., pages 49-52), the “which” does not repeat at all the idea 
expressed by “insects”—for such a repetition would break the 
oneness of total thought (see page 117)—but orders that idea, 
which 'has already been a member of a prior group (“Harris 
studied insects”), to te maintained in mind while a second 
group of fellows gathers about it. At the same time “which,” 
in a well inflected language, exhibits the rank (case) of that 
idea, among its fellows of the second group. Both these opera¬ 
tions of “which” however being purely instructional, the word 
may be neglected, in any effort to establish actual materials 
of thought expressed, precisely as in the case of the language 
which has no relative pronoun. Accordingly I reduce my illus¬ 
tration to “Harris studied insects destroy plants.” 
In this it is plain, I think, that two thoughts are interlocked, 
as indicated by 
(Harris studied [insects) destroy plants.], 
in which, as “insects” is object of “studied,” it would be nat¬ 
ural merely to add that, by means of “destroy,” “insects” and 
“plants” are put in the relation of destroyer-to-what-is-des- 
stroyed. 
But in the making of the centro-lateral total diagrammed 
above, a nucleary lateral factor (“insects”) may be said to 
have been drawn into central membership. How the pull which, 
so to speak, has moved the idea expressed by “insects,” also 
stretches out the thought which “insects” aided in expressing. 
An original “insects—relation of destroyer-to-destroyed— 
