9

1908 Oct 28
Logic
14

while I term anything named in the assertion a Subject,
and although I do not always express myself so accurately, I regard
everything to which the assertion relates and to which need not be
referred to in reference can be removed from the predicate, although
what is referred to be a quality, relation, state of things, etc. as a Subject.
Thus one assertion may have any number of Subjects. Thus, in
the assertion "Some roses are red," i.e., possess the color redness, the
color redness is one of the Subjects; but I do not make "possession"
a Subject, by as if the assertion were, "Some roses are in the
relation of possession of to redness," because this does would not remove
relation from the predicate, since the words "are in" are here equivalent
to "are subjects of," that is, are related to the relation of possession of
redness. For to be in relation to X, and to be in relation to the a relation

1908 Oct 28
Logic
14
while I term anything named in the assertion a Subject,
and although I do not always express myself so accurately, I regard
everything to which the assertion relates and to which need not be
referred to in reference can be removed from the predicate, although
what is referred to be a quality, relation, state of things, etc. as a Subject.
Thus one assertion may have any number of Subjects. Thus, in
the assertion "Some roses are red," i.e., possess the color redness, the
color redness is one of the Subjects; but I do not make "possession"
a Subject, by as if the assertion were, "Some roses are in the
relation of possession of to redness," because this does no remove
relation from the predicate, since the words "are in" are here equivalent
to "are subjects of," that is, are related to the relation of possession of
redness. For to be in relation to X, and to be in relation to the a relation