418 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. 
seems to indicate that I even more intend to assert my opin¬ 
ion of my assailant, than to find out who he is. 
This dominant intention, seems to me to be a survival from an 
earlier state of mind. Reviewing the mental history which cul¬ 
minates in a more ordinary question, e. g., “Who killed Lin¬ 
coln I find a moment at which the thought which the ques¬ 
tion aims to complete, was an attempted, though a. baffled judg¬ 
ment, I should not ask you to tell me who killed Lincoln, ex¬ 
cept as I feel sure of an occurrence in which Lincoln met his 
death. Although this occurrence* is ultimately used to describe 
its missing protagonist, I come to the description in the as¬ 
sertive state of mind. 
This state of mind continues while I make my description. I 
do believe in a. phenomenon, perceived as an ideal trinity com¬ 
posed of actor, act of murder, and victim—and not a whit the 
strictly offered by “Whose hat” is the one conveyed by “the hat owned 
by whom”, or say “the hat of a whom." 
When now I answer “He has peculiar taste,” the person meant by 
“He” is the person meant by “Whose”, appearing a second time upon 
the mental stage. But the actor, so to speak, in the mental drama has, 
on this second appearance, lost his former fellows. “Whose”, like the 
“Who” of other examples, was attended by interrogative elements; but 
by these the “He” is quite deserted. Again the “Whose” not only meant 
“a person ’, but also meant “possessed by”, and this latter meaning also 
has forsaken the person meant by “He.” 
But these defections are offset by considerable reinforcements. As 
introduced by “He” the person reappears upon the mental stage in 
quite a goodly company, of which it is moreover chief—a principal 
term, with a retinue of adjuncts. For “He”, as I take it, means “the 
person owning the hat”, or say “the He of a hat" 
If then “He” be accepted as the reinstater of “Whose”, the following 
changes have occurred: 
(1) The interrogative power of “Whose” is lost. 
(2) The relation named by “owned by” (that is, the relation of prop¬ 
erty to owner) has been replaced by (the relation of owner to property, 
that is) the relation named by “owning.” 
(3) The idea named by “hat” is introduced by a second reinstative 
effort. 
That is, in the process of reinstatement, while a fundamental identity 
remains intact, a large contingent of ideas has been lost (that is, the 
numerous ideas w T hich constitute interrogation)—a relation reversed—a 
new idea added. 
