Owen—Hylrid Parts of Speech. 201 
plants becomes “insects—relation of actor-to-action—destruc¬ 
tion—relation of action-to-acteei—plants” (See pp. 148, 149). 
That is, we are now to recognize a relation between “insects” 
and “destroy,” and another relation between “destroy” and 
“plants.” As the latter relation is incorporated in the mean¬ 
ing of “destroy”—or as, in grammatical terms, that word is 
made to govern an object—“destroy” in its lateral use with 
“plants” may rank as verbal. 
If “destroy” is further to rank as a verbal adjective, it must 
be such by virtue of ranking as an adjective with “insects.” 
That so indeed is does, may appear as follows. 
Doubtless to exact perception (compare page 155, note) 
the relation between “insects” and “destroy” is that of actor- 
to-(his-own-) action. But this relation is often linguistically 
sensed more vaguely as merely a species of the broadly and 
vaguely conceived attributive relation, such adjectives as “fear¬ 
ful,” “desirable,” “cheap,” “conditional,” etc., emphatically 
indicating the extensive scope allowed, in linguistic operations, 
to the attributive category. Accordingly, to rank an actor-to- 
action relation as a substance-to-attribute relation, is merely 
to make a habitual passage from the specific to the generic— 
to lapse from precise recognition into recognition less precise. 
In regarding then the unassertive “destroy” as adjective to 
“insects,” I merely repeat the operation which language has 
carried even further in the adjectives “carnivorous,” “ichthy¬ 
ophagous,” etc. 
My interpretation seems to me to be confirmed by the in¬ 
tention of the illustration, which I should paraphrase by “Hari¬ 
ris studied insects characterized by destruction of plants” or 
“by plant-destruction.” It has moreover the convenience of as¬ 
suming a single mode of thought-construction in 
Harris studied plant-destructive insects. 
Harris studied insects destroying plants. 
Harris studied insects (which) destroy plants. 
The subjunctive thus employed does not to my recollection 
make use of any adjective inflection. What may be said of 
its verbal inflection is quite analogous to what was said of the 
subjunctive used as a verbal noun, on page 194. 
