Owen—Relations Expressed by the Passive Voice. 83 
relation, but beyond a doubt the reverse relation of quality-to- 
thing. This last relation, notwithstanding the hasty denial of 
some writers (e. g. Steinthal), is without the slightest diffi¬ 
culty thinkable, is sometimes really thought, is sometimes even 
Nearly expressed, as in the sentence “Redness characterizes 
roses.” 
In this connection it is interesting to observe that thought- 
reversal—or “conversion,” if you better like the phraseology 
of Logic—if repeated in this case, might lead to “Roses are 
characterized by redness,” which to me exactly paraphrases 
“Roses are red.” So also, in its denotative aspect, “Men are 
animals,”reversed, is “Animals include men;”and, rereversed, is 
“Men are included in (are in the speeies-to-genus relation with) 
animals,” which to me exactly paraphrases denotatively the sen¬ 
tence “Men are animals.” Or, in the connotative aspect—if 
you like it better—reversal of “Men are animals” develops 
“Animal-ness is included in man-ness,” which rereverses into 
“Man-ness includes animal-ness,” which to me exactly para¬ 
phrases connotatively the sentence “Men are Animals.” 
In reversals of this sort, however, so far as I have observed, 
a figurative action is imagined—as if, for instance, the red¬ 
ness “did something” to the roses; but, seeing no gain to be 
effected by examining just now the purely figurative, I con¬ 
fine myself so far as possible to what, with no imagining, may 
rank as action (always specially conceived as a relation-former), 
action-formed relations, and reversal of relation. 
