In actual use, of course, these five (or six) fundamental types may be indefinitely complicated in a number of ways.  The (0) may have a multiple value; in other words, the inherent formal modification of the basic notion of the word may affect more than one category.  In such a Latin word as cor “heart,” for instance, not only is a concrete concept conveyed, but there cling to the form, which is actually shorter than its own radical element (cord-), the three distinct, yet intertwined, formal concepts of singularity, gender classification (neuter), and case (subjective-objective).  The complete grammatical formula for cor is, then, A + (0) + (0) + (0), though the merely external, phonetic formula would be (A)—­, (A) indicating the abstracted “stem” cord-, the minus sign a loss of material.  The significant thing about such a word as cor is that the three conceptual limitations are not merely expressed by implication as the word sinks into place in a sentence; they are tied up, for good and all, within the very vitals of the word and cannot be eliminated by any possibility of usage.

Other complications result from a manifolding of parts.  In a given word there may be several elements of the order A (we have already symbolized this by the type A + B), of the order (A), of the order b, and of the order (b).  Finally, the various types may be combined among themselves in endless ways.  A comparatively simple language like English, or even Latin, illustrates but a modest proportion of these theoretical possibilities.  But if we take our examples freely from the vast storehouse of language, from languages exotic as well as from those that we are more familiar with, we shall find that there is hardly a possibility that is not realized in actual usage.  One example will do for thousands, one complex type for hundreds of possible types.  I select it from Paiute, the language of the Indians of the arid plateaus of southwestern Utah.  The word wii-to-kuchum-punku-ruegani-yugwi-va-ntue-m(ue)[5] is of unusual length even for its own language, but it is no psychological monster for all that.  It means “they who are going to sit and cut up with a knife a black cow (or bull),” or, in the order of the Indian elements, “knife-black-buffalo-pet-cut up-sit(plur.)-future-participle-animate plur.”  The formula for this word, in accordance with our symbolism, would be (F) + (E) + C + d + A + B + (g) + (h) + (i) + (0).  It is the plural of the future participle of a compound verb “to sit and cut up”—­A + B. The elements (g)—­which denotes futurity—­, (h)—­a participial suffix—­, and (i)—­indicating the animate plural—­are grammatical elements which convey nothing when detached.  The formula (0) is intended to imply that the finished word conveys, in addition to what is definitely expressed, a further relational idea, that of subjectivity; in other words, the form can only be used as the subject of a sentence, not in an objective or other syntactic