462 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. 
time the “some one/’ viewed as an indefinite, was in a position 
eminently suitable for being defined by “killed Lincoln.” 
The case of the “is” impresses me as quite analogous—capable 
of the same advantageous treatment. One element of its mean¬ 
ing figures as the desideratum—namely, believing-or-disbeliev- 
ing. As symbolizing that desideratum, the “is” will naturally 
take position immediately after “T'ell me,” as a direct object. 
That element of meaning is, moreover, also an indefinite. As 
symbol of that indefinite, the “is” will naturally not mingle with 
the elements which are to define it.; that is, it will take position 
immediately before (or immediately after) the words by which 
it must be defined—that is, before or after “Brown” and 
“honest.” But it cannot come after them, without losing its 
well nigh indispensable connection with “Tell me.” Accord¬ 
ingly it shall come before them. 
Apparently then, in changing from diagramatic to •senten¬ 
tial presentation, all old advantages may be retained, analogy 
preserved, and new advantages acquired. I therefore do not 
hesitate to substitute the sentence 
(Tell me [is) Brown honest]. 
In writing this, I use the parenthetic signs as well as brack¬ 
ets, to show that my sentence is really two, being the expression 
of two judgments; and that a part of what is meant by “is” 
should be regarded as at the same time factor of one and factor 
of the other judgment. This simultaneous factorship I also 
believe to be, at the outset, the only operative motive for the 
chosen verbal order. I do not indeed forget that, when my 
sentence shall become the question “Is Brown honest?”, some 
will have it, that the question,-form has been developed by “in¬ 
version” operating on the statement “B'rown is honest.” But 
I can not regard the interrogative order of words as reached by 
any puss-in-the-corner game between the verb and subject; nor 
can I regard the so-called inversion as, at the outset, any con¬ 
scious warning of interrogative purpose. I believe that, what¬ 
soever might, in assertion, have been the order followed by 
“Brown,” “honest” and “is,” the “is” would, in a question, go 
to the head of the sentence, irrespective of any apparent place- 
exchange with either of the other words. In short, I believe that 
it takes its place according to fundamental principles of thought- 
construction, adapted to the special limitations of sentential 
presentation. 
