374 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts, and Letters. 
tion (say that of owner to property) in the static phase, while “to get” 
and “to acquire” express the same relation in the dynamic phase. More 
over a-single word may express, on one occasion, one, and, on another, 
the other phase—as in “A exceeds B,” which may be taken as meaning 
either “A is greater than B” or “A is becoming greater than B.” 
It is the dynamic relation which is commonly expressed by the verb 
of action, when attended by its object. Thus in ‘A killed B” the 
relation of slayer to victim is considered in the formative phase—a 
phase which in “A was killing B” is dwelt upon or, so to speak, 
stretched out in temporal length. Action then may be interpreted as 
formative relation, thus facilitating the recognition of the general prin¬ 
ciple, that every thought of the linguistic type consists of at least two 
terms and their relation. 
THOUGHT-ELEMENTS VERSUS THOUGHT-ATTENDANTS. 
By thought-attendants, elsewhere described as instructional 
(See p. 431, etc.), I mean a variety of suggestions commonly 
offered by sentences, but forming no 1 part of centrally intended 
thought. Given, for instance, “Orange 1 exceeds lemon”, I find 
in the verb a; person and number value. Blut this I regard as 
merely helping the association of the relation with the right first 
term, in case the sentence, by exhibiting several possible first 
terms, creates an opportunity for error. I also find that 
“orange” and “lemon” may have casfr endings which would locate 
the idea of each as either first or last term of thought expressed. 
But this idea of position in thought-structure, like the idea of 
association noted just before, is not a part of the thought to be 
constructed, but merely a guide to the proper construction of that 
thought. Such ideas compare with actual thought-members 
much as the plans and specifications of a building compare with 
the materials of which it is made. Accordingly in the present 
investigation I neglect them. 
Primary or essential thought-elements. 
By these I mean the terms thus far revealed (See p. 367) 
by thought analysis. For instance, in the thought expressed by 
“Orange exceeds lemon”, I discover, thus far, only the idea 
expressed by “orange”, that expressed by “lemon” and a rela¬ 
tion of bulk-superiority expressible by “excess.” As none of 
these can be omitted without my thought’s surrender of its 
claim to be a thought, they may be ranked as the essential ele¬ 
ments of the given thought. 
