Owen—Interrogative Thought—Means of Its Expression. 435 
mainder of interrogative thought; but also I cannot discover 
any element of meaning common to both “killed” and “stole,” 
or to “Lincoln” and “umbrella,” which might he a part of what 
I claim to be expressed by “Who?” Indeed, I may dismiss 
without replacement, “killed” or “Lincoln,” or even both at 
once; and still I do not find that “Who ?” is in this instance 
called upon for any increase of exertion as a messenger. In 
short, no part of what is meant by the eight interpreting words 
appears to be expressed by any word of the question but “Who ?” 
Accordingly, if this meaning be expressed by any member of the 
question “Who killed Lincoln ?,” the expressing must be done by 
“Who?” alone. This is, the interrogative “Who?” must mean 
“I wish you to tell me him who.” 
A probability that any message given to the “Who?” of the 
question will in some way differ from that entrusted to the 
“who” of the interpretation, is moreover indicated by the differ¬ 
ence in the vocal treatments of the words themselves. As merely 
one of ten, the “who” is uttered feebly and in a somewhat lower 
pitch than its fellows. As one of three, the “Who ?” is uttered 
very differently. In the present state of vocal usage (and its 
explanation) I admit its general insecurity as basis for an argu¬ 
ment; yet, for the difference in these particular vocal render¬ 
ings, I think there is a rational motive, explanatory of the case 
in hand. 
As one of ten, as a relative:—that is, an isolated case-inflec¬ 
tion—“who” is not on a par of importance with attendant fully 
empowered words. These are the bearers, each, of a part of the 
thought to' be constructed—each the bringer of a special mesr 
sage. “Who” is the merest badge of one particular message- 
bringer—the. indication of his rank in the embassy of thought. 
Properly, in such a case, this “who” is vocally subordinate. 
Vocal treatment varies little when, by the use of a pregnant 
“who” (see p. 432) interpretation is reduced to 
“I wish you to tell me who killed Lincoln.” 
Little variation is, indeed, to be expected, since the pregnant 
“who” is so much more appreciably the heir of the formally 
identical relative “who,” than of the utterly different “him.” 
But when the “Who ?” is one of three, becoming interrogative, 
its pitch and loudness equal in American English, and surpass 
in British English, those of any other sentence-member; and 
this I take: to be because it bears a. message 1 even weightier than 
that of either fellow-messenger. 
