[1] This assumption involves (see Lecture V.) a confusion between the Proposition as thoroughly understood, and the Proposition as a series of partially significant sounds or signs. For obvious reasons, this confusion is very readily made. For the operation of Formal Logic it is almost necessary to have these parts, because it is requisite to transpose the terms (as in Conversion) without changing their meaning, [1] and to get rid of _tenses_, which do not belong to Scientific Judgment, and are very troublesome in Formal Inference. [1] If the “predicate” is a Substantive, this presents no difficulty; and if it is an Adjective, it can be done by a little straining of grammar, or the insertion of “thing” or “things.” With a verb it is more clumsy. Thus in Formal Logic we prefer the shape of sentence “Gold is lustrous” to “Gold glitters,” and “The bridge is {99} cracked” to “There is a crack in the bridge.” And practically all propositions can be thrown into this shape, which is convenient for comparing them. The educational value of elementary formal logic consists chiefly, I am convinced, in the exercise of paraphrasing poetical or rhetorical assertions into this typical shape, with the least possible sacrifice of meaning. The commonest mistakes in the work of beginners, within my experience as a teacher, consist in failures to interpret rightly the sentence given for analysis. But this type is not really ultimate. The judgment can be conveyed without a grammatical subject, and without the verb “is”--indeed without any grammatical verb at all. On the whole this agrees with Mill’s view in the chapter “Of Propositions.” [1] He points out (§ 1) that we really need nothing but the Subject and Predicate, and that the copula is a mere sign of their connection _as_ Subject and Predicate. He does not, however, discuss the case in which the grammatical Subject is absent. [1] Mill’s _Logic_, Bk. I. ch. iv. _Copula_