246 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. 
Minor differences accordingly (of either order) being over¬ 
looked, it may be regarded as a foregone conclusion, that one 
at least of the causes which determine the use of a particular 
kind of verbal noun, will be its superior power of structure- 
exhibition. 
To illustrate this, 
(1) I cannot imagine that men who strive diligently succeed 
worse than a man of mere ability; 
(2) I cannot imagine men who strive diligently to succeed- 
worse than a man of mere ability. 
In both these expressions I have omitted punctuation, and, 
were they presented orally, I should avoid all vocal aid of 
pitch or pause or tone, in order to throw each verbal form upon 
its own unaided expressional resources. 
In any sufficiently inflected and severely consistent language,, 
the word for “succeed” in (1) will have a recognizably sub¬ 
junctive form; and even in English, with its frequent neglect 
of the few subjunctive forms it has, the word “succeed” is- 
plainly subjunctive in value—that is, it is not assertive: it 
does not, in its meaning, include belief. 
The expressional resources of “succeed” in (1) are adequate. 
Those of “to succeed” in (2) are quite inadequate. Eor, al- 
thought I intended (2) to express a thought, the essential dupli¬ 
cate of (1) in content and in structure, plainly (2) is in danger 
of being taken to express a different thought, as follows: “To 
succeed” may be taken as the object of “strive,” the sense of 
the expression being thereby radically changed. Such wrong 
construing credits me with meaning—what I did not mean at 
all'—that I cannot imagine diligent strivers for success to be 
worse than a man of ability. 
Such wrong construing is in (1) forestalled by the subjunc¬ 
tive. The expression “men who” 90 indicates, by means of 
lation with a man who is in the "br other-to-br other relation with Robin¬ 
son,” which latter statement quickly reduces in your mind to the 
former, and presumably would gain the power of directly presenting 
the kinship named in the former, without a reducing process, if forced 
to do so in the absence of the briefer formula “nephew-to-uncle.” 
90 i n “Pronouns,” pages 49-62, I have argued that “who” does not 
repeat the idea expressed by "men”, but merely indicates that this 
idea is factor of two thoughts, and in the second has the function in¬ 
dicated by the nominative case. 
