Take these examples from First Cor. xv.:

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

The principal assertions are upon the pronoun "this," and the phrase "flesh and blood." "flesh and blood." Both of these assertions may be revealed thus, Now the point of the argument, brethren, is this: The spiritual kingdom cannot be inherited by mortal bòdies.

Verse 20 of the same chapter is often misinterpreted:

But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the first fruits of them that are asleep.

The chief assertion is upon the verb "hath been raised; and in this verb the distinctive part is the auxiliary "hath,” which represents the action as already completed. The attention does not need to be called to the idea of raising. The question is as to whether Christ's resurrection is now an accomplished fact. To reveal this, the first clause might be paraphrased thus:

But now the resurrection of Christ has taken place.
Verse 35, also, is easily misread : —

But some man will say, How are the dead raised, and with what manner of body do they come ?

The emphasis is often placed upon the words "raised and "come;" but evidently the idea contained in "raised" has been so many times stated or distinctly implied in the preceding verses that it is now simply taken for granted, or assumed; and the word "come" contains no essential significance, being merely the commonplace filling out of the sentence.

The true emphasis will be revealed by par

aphrasing, thus, But some man will say, This raising of the dead is done how? And when the dead rise, they will have what sort of body?

The same is clearly shown in this sentence from the ninth chapter of John:

They say, therefore, unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him in that he hath opened thine eyes?

Here the chief assertion is not upon the last word, but upon "thou; and to reveal and justify this relation we may invert the words of the text, making it read somewhat as follows, So they say again to the blind man, Considering the fact that he has opened your eyes, what do you say of him, yourself?

COMPLEX RELATIONS.

Completeness, incompleteness, assumption, and assertion are usually simple in their nature. We have also many cases of composite or combined relations, expressing in the same word or phrase different simultaneous notions. Such complex relations often need some special symbol in the intonation; and for this use the circumflexes are naturally adapted. The double motion of the voice upon a single sound or group of sounds is an instinctive symbol of the double purpose in the speaking mind.

We recognize three distinct types, or varieties, of composite relations.

1. Comparison or Contrast with Affirmation. This supposes two elements in the thought, and usually implies, rather than states, the holding of the two before the attention at the same moment. Its vocal symbol is the falling circumflex (^).

Example. -"This is not the only reason.”

When we say "This is not the only reason," the other reasons that might be named are suppressed, and the word "only" must imply the contrast. This will need the circumflex.

When both members of the antithesis or of the comparison are separately and fully expressed, and when the parts stand close together, they usually take contrasted slides instead of condensed, or circumflex inflection; as:

"I come to bùry Cæsar, not to praise him:"

2. Comparison or Contrast with Incompleteness. This is rendered still more complex by the addition of an element of subordination, negation, interrogation, or some other type of incompleteness. Its symbol is the wave [~~~].

Could I but know this now!

Here the contrast between knowing and only surmising is joined with anticipation, doubt, or uncertainty.

I do not like your faults.

This plainly implies a contrast, with negation or concession. The fact of their involved double significance renders these forms especially useful in sarcasm, raillery, wit and humor. They often express surprise, which is really a contrast between what was expected and what is seen. They are legitimately used whenever it is most economical to imply double relations of thought, rather than explicitly to state both of the combined ideas. This joins with a

3. Affirmation with Incompleteness. strong subjective attitude an interrogation, a negation, an entreaty, or some one of the more distinctly expressive

types of incompleteness. It is thus essentially double in its significance, combining a positive and a negative element of thought; typically, an assertion and an appeal. This double significance appears plainly in such expres

sions as:

You won't go,

when it means, You will not go, will you?

You don't believe that,

meaning, You do not beliève it, do you?

As in this case, so usually, the twofold thought could be made more apparent by separating the elements which are packed into one briefer form.

The vocal symbol of this double relation is the rising circumflex (V).

The office of the inflection in the interpretation of such twofold expression is, most economically to suggest the hidden or implied element. The two motions of the voice, united in one, naturally symbolize the two motives in the mind combined in one. We must not regard the phraseology alone, but must seek to find all that is naturally implied, considering the context and the circumstances of the utterance.

Paraphrase for Complex Relations. -These, as already seen, are cases of combined ideas, expressed by composite motions of the voice, called circumflexes. In order to justify such double motion of the voice, the mind of the reader needs to recognize the combination implied in the words. He will make himself surer of this by analyzing, or separating into its component parts, each composite idea. "Be not too tâme neither."

Here is a plain implication of one member of the antithesis; and it might be expanded thus, As you are not to be too extravagant in your expression, so you are not to be too quiet.

This combination of separable elements might be illustrated by diagram, thus:

Here the negative, or anticipatory, clause is, in the condensed form, suggested by the negative, or rising, part of the circumflex; the positive clause, by the falling part of the tone.

In a similar way two separate elements, both of which are verbally expressed, may be combined in one elliptical or complex clause; e.g.,

I come to bury Cæsar, not to praise him.

Inverting clauses,

The same method of illustration may be extended ad libitum.