 Cook Wilson also questioned superficial uniformity of the form ‘S is P’, calling the subject of attributes ‘metaphysical’ (SI, 158) in order to distinguish it from the subject of predication. He thus distinguished the ontological distinction between substance and attribute from the logical subject-predicate distinction. Using the traditional definition of the subject as ‘what supports the predicate’ and the predicate as ‘what is said concerning the subject’ (quoting Boethius, SI, 114–115), he noted that a ‘statement’ such as ‘That building is the Bodleian’ has different analyses, depending on the occasion in which it is used. If in answer to ‘What building is that?’, with the ‘stress accent’ on ‘the Bodleian’ as in ‘That building is the Bodleian’, the subject is ‘that building’ and the predicate as ‘what is said concerning the subject’ is ‘that that building is the Bodleian’ (SI, 117 &amp; 158). But, if in answer to the question ‘Which building is the Bodleian?’ with the ‘stress accent’ now on ‘that’ as in ‘That building is the Bodleian’, then the Bodleian is the subject and the predicate is ‘that building pointed out was it’ (SI, 119). The same goes for ‘glass is elastic’, where elasticity is predicated of glass and ‘glass is elastic’, when it is stated in answer to someone looking for substances that are elastic. This shows that the relation of subject to predicate is somehow symmetric, but it is not the case, however, with the subject/attribute distinction because ‘‘The subject cannot be an attribute of one of its own attributes’’ (SI, 158). Cook Wilson also noted that ‘‘the stress accent is upon the part of the sentence which conveys the new information’’ (SI, 118), and he would thus say that the subject-predicate relation depends on the subjective order in which we apprehend them (SI, 139), while the relation between ‘subject’ and ‘attribute’ is objective in the sense that it is holding between a particular thing and a ‘particularized quality’, it is a ‘‘relation between realities without reference to our apprehension of them’’ (Robinson 1931, 103).