by second the, which has preposed position
    Modality: 
      3.  Declarative:  expressed by sequence of “subject” plus verb; and
          implied by suffixed _-s_
    Personal relations: 
      4.  Subjectivity of farmer:  expressed by position of farmer
          before kills; and by suffixed _-s_
      5.  Objectivity of duckling:  expressed by position of duckling
          after kills
    Number: 
      6.  Singularity of first subject of discourse:  expressed by lack of
          plural suffix in farmer; and by suffix _-s_ in following verb
      7.  Singularity of second subject of discourse:  expressed by lack
          of plural suffix in duckling
    Time: 
      8.  Present:  expressed by lack of preterit suffix in verb; and by
          suffixed _-s_

In this short sentence of five words there are expressed, therefore, thirteen distinct concepts, of which three are radical and concrete, two derivational, and eight relational.  Perhaps the most striking result of the analysis is a renewed realization of the curious lack of accord in our language between function and form.  The method of suffixing is used both for derivational and for relational elements; independent words or radical elements express both concrete ideas (objects, activities, qualities) and relational ideas (articles like the and a; words defining case relations, like of, to, for, with, by; words defining local relations, like in, on, at); the same relational concept may be expressed more than once (thus, the singularity of farmer is both negatively expressed in the noun and positively in the verb); and one element may convey a group of interwoven concepts rather than one definite concept alone (thus the _-s_ of kills embodies no less than four logically independent relations).

Our analysis may seem a bit labored, but only because we are so accustomed to our own well-worn grooves of expression that they have come to be felt as inevitable.  Yet destructive analysis of the familiar is the only method of approach to an understanding of fundamentally different modes of expression.  When one has learned to feel what is fortuitous or illogical or unbalanced in the structure of his own language, he is already well on the way towards a sympathetic grasp of the expression of the various classes of concepts in alien types of speech.  Not everything that is “outlandish” is intrinsically illogical or far-fetched.  It is often precisely the familiar that a wider perspective reveals as the curiously exceptional.  From a purely logical standpoint it is obvious that there is no inherent reason why the concepts expressed in our sentence should have been singled out, treated, and grouped as they have been and not otherwise.  The sentence is the outgrowth of historical and of unreasoning