Owen—Interrogative Thought—Means of Its Expression 411 
element; for instance “Booth to have killed-.” In such a 
case it is obviously insufficient, not only as a conception, but also 
as a judgment. Again, a conception may be insufficient because, 
though quite sufficing as conception, it fails, to be the judgment 
which the thinker wishes that it might be; for instance “Booth 
to have killed Lincoln.” In either case accordingly the thought- 
form ranked thus far as an insufficient conception may, from 
a different point of view, rank also' as an insufficient judgment. 
How as a judgment is a conception plus belief, and as—in 
theory at least—belief may be added to any conception, possible 
kinds of judgment-insufficiency include all possible kinds of in¬ 
sufficiency in a conception. Accordingly we may drop the con¬ 
sideration of conception-insufficiency and take up that of judg¬ 
ment-insufficiency, without any danger of overlooking any ele¬ 
ment of judgment or conception. 
Of judgment-insufficiency there plainly may be reckoned as 
many kinds as there are kinds of judgment-elements; for the 
absence of any element is possible and constitutes, if actual, 
what may be felt as insufficiency; and insufficiency in each case 
may be recognized, if so elected, as a special type. 
Of judgment-elements I recognized, in the simplest case, the 
following kinds: 
(1) A primary mental unit or thought—or say a conception— 
consisting of two ideas and their relation; 
(2) The truth (or untruth) of this thought; 
(3) Belief in this truth (or untruth). 
Whether (2) is ever absent from a would-be judgment, be¬ 
coming what a. question aims to supply, may bei examined later. 
(See p. 446.) That (3) may fail to attend a thought, has 
been sufficiently indicated in the treatment of conception 
(pp. 387-388 ). Assuming for the moment that belief may some 
times be what a question aims to establish; assuming the like 
of each primary idea., or term-, of (1) ; assuming the like of 
every adjunct possible to any term of (1) ; I see that the inter¬ 
rogative judgment may be interrogative as to—• 
genus (1)—a term or adjunct, 
genus (2)—belief. 
The former genus is intended by the current expression, “the 
interrogative sentence with (specially recognized) interrogative 
word;” e. g. “Who saw you “Whom) saw you “What man 
saw him ?,” “What man saw he “Where saw you me ?” etc. 
