[Footnote 7:  “Coordinate sentences” like I shall remain but you may go may only doubtfully be considered as truly unified predications, as true sentences.  They are sentences in a stylistic sense rather than from the strictly formal linguistic standpoint.  The orthography I shall remain.  But you may go is as intrinsically justified as I shall remain.  Now you may go.  The closer connection in sentiment between the first two propositions has led to a conventional visual representation that must not deceive the analytic spirit.]

[Footnote 8:  Except, possibly, in a newspaper headline.  Such headlines, however, are language only in a derived sense.]

The habitual association of radical elements, grammatical elements, words, and sentences with concepts or groups of concepts related into wholes is the fact itself of language.  It is important to note that there is in all languages a certain randomness of association.  Thus, the idea of “hide” may be also expressed by the word “conceal,” the notion of “three times” also by “thrice.”  The multiple expression of a single concept is universally felt as a source of linguistic strength and variety, not as a needless extravagance.  More irksome is a random correspondence between idea and linguistic expression in the field of abstract and relational concepts, particularly when the concept is embodied in a grammatical element.  Thus, the randomness of the expression of plurality in such words as books, oxen, sheep, and geese is felt to be rather more, I fancy, an unavoidable and traditional predicament than a welcome luxuriance.  It is obvious that a language cannot go beyond a certain point in this randomness.  Many languages go incredibly far in this respect, it is true, but linguistic history shows conclusively that sooner or later the less frequently occurring associations are ironed out at the expense of the more vital ones.  In other words, all languages have an inherent tendency to economy of expression.  Were this tendency entirely inoperative, there would be no grammar.  The fact of grammar, a universal trait of language, is simply a generalized expression of the feeling that analogous concepts and relations are most conveniently symbolized in analogous forms.  Were a language ever completely “grammatical,” it would be a perfect engine of conceptual expression.  Unfortunately, or luckily, no language is tyrannically consistent.  All grammars leak.

Up to the present we have been assuming that the material of language reflects merely the world of concepts and, on what I have ventured to call the “pre-rational” plane, of images, which are the raw material of concepts.  We have, in other words, been assuming that language moves entirely in the ideational or cognitive sphere.  It is time that we amplified the picture.  The volitional aspect of consciousness also is to some extent explicitly provided for in language.  Nearly