without any Attributes belonging to it?" It is a very puzzling
question, and I'm not going to try to answer it: let us turn up
our noses, and treat it with contemptuous silence, as if it really
wasn't worth noticing. But, if they put it the other way, and ask
"Can an Attribute exist without any Thing for it to belong to?", we
may say at once "No: no more than a Baby could go a railway-journey
with no one to take care of it!" You never saw "beautiful" floating
about in the air, or littered about on the floor, without any Thing
to BE beautiful, now did you?

And now what am I driving at, in all this long rigmarole? It is
this. You may put "is" or "are" between names of two THINGS (for
example, "some Pigs are fat Animals"), or between the names of two
ATTRIBUTES (for example, "pink is light-red"), and in each case it
will make good sense. But, if you put "is" or "are" between the
name of a THING and the name of an ATTRIBUTE (for example, "some
Pigs are pink"), you do NOT make good sense (for how can a Thing
BE an Attribute?) unless you have an understanding with the person
to whom you are speaking. And the simplest understanding would, I
think, be this--that the Substantive shall be supposed to be repeated
at the end of the sentence, so that the sentence, if written out
in full, would be "some Pigs are pink (Pigs)". And now the word
"are" makes quite good sense.

Thus, in order to make good sense of the Proposition "some new Cakes
are nice", we must suppose it to be written out in full, in the
form "some new Cakes are nice (Cakes)". Now this contains two
'TERMS'--"new Cakes" being one of them, and "nice (Cakes)" the
other. "New Cakes," being the one we are talking about, is called
the 'SUBJECT' of the Proposition, and "nice (Cakes)" the 'PREDICATE'.