436 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. 
Taking a hint from. Chinese, I infer that the “Who ?” of the 
verbal trio 1 —that is, the interrogative “Who?”—is intended as 
a different word from the “who” of either interpretation—in 
particular, the pregnant “who,” whose vocal treatment is the 
less dissimilar. This inference is strengthened by the practice 
of other languages, in which the interrogative and relative (both 
simple relative and pregnant relative) are given altogether dif¬ 
ferent forms, and ranked as absolutely different words. As 
such, there is ground for expecting them to show a. difference in 
their values. 
By “value” I intend not only meaning—that is, (1) con¬ 
tribution of thought-elements—but also guidance—that is, (2) 
contribution of knowledge how thought-elements are to be put 
together. Value, in other words, shall stand for thought-con¬ 
tingents of two kinds, structural and instructional—the latter 
being extra-structural. (See p. 431.) 
As for differences of meaning in the sense of (1), I noted on 
p. 432 that the pregnant “who” has only the meaning of the 
indefinite sometimes antecedent “him,” which it has incorpo¬ 
rated. On the other hand the interrogative “Who ?” has all the 
meaning of “I desire you to tell me him (or the person).” In 
a search, exhausting if not exhaustive, I have discovered nothing 
more. This total—big enough, no doubt, without expansion—• 
I believe to be what is meant by “Who?” I cannot see that 
it is merely inferred, or say supplied. I believe that, when I 
use the interrogative “Who?,” I regularly think, though doubt¬ 
less somewhat dimly, of what is expressed by “I desire you to 
tell me him;” that I wish you also to think of the same; that 
I succeed in bringing you to do so. Believing thus, I must rank 
what each of us regularly thinks of, as actually expressed by 
“Who?”—as what indeed the dictionary should exhibit as its 
meaning.* 
As for differences in guidance, I find none. The power en¬ 
trusted to the pregnant “who” is handed over to the interroga¬ 
tive, it seems to me, intact. T ! o make this clear, compare 
*1 was myself somewhat dismayed, at first, by this result of a quite 
uncompromising argument. I venture however to hope that those who 
must regard a part of this meaning (of Who?) as inferred, can charge 
up to an unimportant “personal equation” what they deem excess of 
meaning proper, without regarding my conclusions as otherwise in¬ 
valid* 
