Owen—Interrogative Thought—Means of Its Expression. 431 
it would be also well to indicate by nominative inflection. But 
language does not seem to furnish double inflection of the sort 
required by this double factorship. The linguistic expedient 
adopted to meet this exigency is the relative, in the present case 
the so-called relative pronoun “who.” I therefore reconstruct 
my diagram, utilizing this “who” and also displacing the indefi¬ 
nite “some one” by the more convenient “him,” which in this 
case is also indefinite. Accordingly, 
I wish you to tell me him 
who 
killed 
Lincoln. 
This diagram I later utilize as the interpretation of the ques¬ 
tion “Who killed Lincoln ?” Meantime, inspecting the opera¬ 
tive method of the diagram in thoughtrexpression, I find no 
obscurity, unless it be in the case of “who.” Examining as 
closely as I can, I note that the idea expressed by “him” is not 
repeated or varied in its nature by “who.” I conclude accord¬ 
ingly that “who” is strictly void of meaning—that is, it stands 
for no idea which forms a part, of intended thought. Its use is 
that of plans and specifications, which, helpful as they are in 
the construction of a building, form no part of the building 
constructed. It may then be distinguished as instructional, but 
by no means structural. 
Reviewing its instructional activity, I find that it warns my 
hearer not to> allow the idea introduced by “him” to slip away 
from his attention, but to hold it fast in mind while a new en¬ 
vironment of ideas is gathered around it. Accordingly, for my 
personal convenience, I call it a continuative. But the more 
important function of this “who” I take to be its indication 
that the idea, shown by the special form of “him” to be already 
the object in a first environment, is to be the subject in the yet 
to be assembled second environment. To me accordingly “who,” 
in its more conspicuous aspect, is merely a “case-ending,” iso¬ 
lated from its stem, the sign of a single idea’s particular mem¬ 
bership in one of two thoughts into which it enters. (For an 
elaboration of this theory, see “A Revision of the Pronoun”— 
Chap. III.) 
Wishing further to condense my diagram, I utilize the power 
of multiple symbolization. Just as “what” may be invested 
