________________
Where the
chief agency
is super-im
posed on the
dependant agent?
but nominatives to the verbs 'expands.' Indeed we do so in similar other expressions as, 'the falling' or the 'sword cuts well.'
'rolls' or such and
stone is
And the
What is
question is, Why do we do so? it that prevails upon to acknowledge the independence of what we really know to be of dependant character? To all this we have but to submit in reply that such forms of expressions are indeed resorted to when the principal agent stands beyond the range of our vision or where the subordinate agents are required to show as if they were playing the role of the principal agent notwithstanding the actual presence of the latter. When the other agents stand in close proximity with the principal, it is then that the subordinate character of their position and function becomes apparent. But where the principal stands in the the other background there the one or of the subordinate agents stands out as the principal in as much as these have their agencies in their respective functional activities and this explains the ascription of primary agency to the ball, heat, or to the
230
