0wen—Interrogatee Thought—Means of Its Expression, 3 6 3 
assumed by a, thought, before it is expressed by a sentence it 
takes the form of a pair of ideas and the relation between them.* 
Sentences presuppose analysis and synthesis of thought. 
While using for convenience the term analysis, I wish to be 
understood as omitting from its meaning any idea of separation. 
Also from the meaning of synthesis I wish to exclude the idea of 
junction. By the former I mean the recognition, the special 
perception, of a whole as consisting of members—not its division 
into separate parts. By the latter I mean the recognition of mem¬ 
bers as constituting a whole; I do not mean a combining of 
separate elements. 
It is believed and, I doubt not, rightly, that in the beginnings 
of speech the single symbol stood for a total unanalyzed thought. 
Indeed survivals of this method exist at the present time. It is 
the basis of the cable code. It crops out. in such expressions as 
“Pluit”, in which the word performis the function of the sen¬ 
tence. It is recognized in “Yes” and “ISTo,” which, by reinstat¬ 
ing previously mentioned elements of thought, attain the values, 
of affirmative and negative statements. (See further, p. 441.) 
B)ut the difficulty of this method led to its abrogation, as the 
number of thoughts to be expressed grew larger. For the num¬ 
ber of symbols which the mind can remember must be reckoned 
by thousands only; while the number of different thoughts which 
the mind may form, is quite beyond reckoning. On the other 
hand, the number of ideas or thought-elements which the mind 
has thus far developed is comparatively small. Yet by co-think- 
*Anotlier view of the sentence, preferred by some, I mention only in 
order to discard it. According to this view I centrally announce what I 
conceive as an action, by the word “employs.” With this employing I 
at the same time think of Brown as standing in the relation of actor 
to his own act (one of the relations covered by the phrase, “relation of 
subject to verb”). At the same time I am supposed to think of the em¬ 
ploying and the Italian as standing in the relation of action to its own 
actee (“the relation of verb to its object”). But I believe that we ac¬ 
tually make a short cut. Just as I hardly think all at once of A as the 
brother of B, and of B as the father of C, but rather of A as the uncle 
of C; so also I hardly think of “Brown” as related in one way with 
“employing,” and “employing” as related in another way with the 
“Italian.” I rather think of “Brown” as related with the “Italian;”" 
and the relation I conceive as that of employer to employee. That is,. 
I make over relations to suit the direct relationship required. 
