Owen — Relations Expressed by the Passive Voice. 129 
In negation the alternative of rightness, namely wrongness, is ex¬ 
pressed by “not” or an equivalent. As the following investigation 
does not enter into differences between affirmative and negative as¬ 
sertion, I may overlook them now in making a distinctive list of 
elements contributed, in the expression of an action-judgment, by 
the verb—as follows: 
A dominant relation (action-formed) and 
an assertion 
Lest I seem to overlook the other parts of speech that also name 
relations, I admit that a relation-namer, (say “superiority,” “supe¬ 
rior,” “superiorly”) when abstracted from its terms, is capable of 
sentence-membership as any part of speech. But the preposition is 
the only other part of speech that, like the verb, exhibits a relation 
in immediate association with its terms. Thus “superiority,” and 
other namers of relation in the abstract, all apparently require preposi¬ 
tions as the indicators that, in the relation named, attendant terms 
are implicated. For example, “the superiority of steel to iron.” 
The preposition is accordingly the only part of speech that could 
aspire to the expression of the thought-contingent that I have sup¬ 
posed to be imported by the verb alone. I seem to see however that 
the aspiration never would be realized. In support of my belief I 
merely note what I intend to argue in another publication: that the 
preposition, in its meaning, does not comprehend assertion; that, 
although the preposition often names relation surely the result of 
action, it makes no attempt to name the action itself; that the 
preposition does not name a dominant relation; that the preposition 
and its object operate together as an adjunct—a subordinate element. 
For instance, in the sentence “Brown was struck by Robinson,” what¬ 
ever be the intrinsic notability of what the preposition means, in the 
linguistic thought-perspective “by” and “Brown” (or rather the ideas 
which they name) together enter thought-construction as the adjunct, 
the attendant in the background of—I care not now precisely what; 
perhaps of Brown, perhaps of any of the several elements incorporated 
in the meaning of the verb. In conspicuous contrast with that ad¬ 
junct, Brown, the relation of Brown and striking, and the striking 
occupy the foreground, forming thus together a sufficient mental 
entity; for while “by Robinson” is valueless except it be associated, 
say, with “Brown was struck,” the latter formally at least is self- 
sufficient. 
Returning now to “Itur ab omnibus” I find in “Itur” (an indicative) 
assurance* of intention to express a judgment or, in other words, 
* Moreover, as I have contended elsewhere, in linguistic practice 
every exhibition of a thought by courtesy implies assertion; for, out¬ 
side of poetry, in which for instance the intrinsic beauty of a mental 
picture is sufficient warrant for displaying it, you do not care to 
see the pictures in my mind, unless I vouch for them as something 
