ABSTRACT
Frequently ordinary language contains subtle psychological implications which cannot be translated into symbolic logic except at great length. Thus if a man (say Mr. Jones) wishes to speak collectively of himself and his wife, the order of mentioning the terms in the class considered and the names applied to these terms are, logically speaking, irrelevant. And yet more or less definite information is given about Mr. Jones according as he talks to his friends of:
(1) Mrs. Jones and I,
(2) I (or me) and my wife (or missus),
(3) My wife and I,
or (4) I (or me) and Mrs. Jones.
