362 Wisconsin Academy of SciencesArts, and Letters. 
Italian is my resultant. Tie first two being my condition, 
Italian is my conclusion, the most important figure of my 
thought. 
But I make no effort to show this by the form of my 
sentence. I give to “Italian” no such form or position as I gave 
to “employs” in the sentence which announced the discovery of 
a relation. I do not say that “Brown Italians the employment,” 
(that is, the relation of employer to employee). I say, as be¬ 
fore, “Brown employs an Italian.” That is, I express, as before, 
the thought-form which is; developed by finding a relation 
between terms!—.not the form developed by finding a term to fit 
a relation and another term. 
So also starting with “employs” and “Italian” I may arrive at 
“Brown.” Bbt I shall not say that “The employing Browns the 
Italian” or that “The Italian is Browned by the employment.” 
I shall say, as before, that “Brown employs an Italian.” 
It is true that different emphases may indicate the different 
forms of thought which first of all I form. The discovery of the 
relation may be announced by “Brown employs an Italian;” 
that of the Italian, by “Brown employs an Italian'; that of 
Brown, by “Broivn employs an Italian.” But when, for 
instance, I emphasize “Italian”, the emphasis is an admission 
that my sentence is strictly inaccurate—that it fails to express 
the particular form of thought which I should like to express if 
language gave me the power. The emphasis tolls you that in 
that particular form “Italian” is my resultant, though not 
appearing as such in the form of thought which my sentence 
expresses. It warns you that “Italian” should have the emi¬ 
nence which belongs to “employs” in “Brown employs an 
Italian”. 
The sort of thought revealed by the last expression becomes 
moreover the linguistic norm—employed even when the sort of 
thought originally formed is very different. Thus, examining in 
detail the impression produced by a red rose, and wishing to set 
before you the detailed impression, I say that “The rose is red”, 
which I interpret as meaning that the rose and the redness are in 
the relation of object to its own quality. That is, the thought 
expressed is precisely that which I should have formed, had I 
passed from the successive ideas of object and color to : the dis¬ 
covery of a qualitative relation between them. 
Without examining further, I offer, merely as a, working hypo¬ 
thesis, the assumption that, whatever be the form originally 
