Owen — Inten'ogative Thought—Means of Its Expression . 437 
( 1 ) 
) “I wish you to tell me himi who- killed Lincoln” and 
\ “I wish you to tell me him whom Booth killed.” 
The indefinite “him” is, in each expression, shown by the 
form of “him” to be the object of “tell.” Whatever is meant 
by “him” is, however, in the one case, shown to be also the sub¬ 
ject of “killed”—shown, in the other, to be also the object of 
“killed.” These latter showing’s are respectively effected by the 
relatives “who” and “whom.” 
In 
( . j “I wish you tell me who killed Lincoln” and 
' ' } “I wish you to tell me whom Booth killed.” 
the guidance, offered in the previous illustrations by the merely 
relative “who” and “whom,” is still afforded by the “who” and 
“whom,” now pregnant. But the guidance, offered in the pre¬ 
vious illustrations by “him,” is no longer given. 
Let now the last expressions be replaced by formal interro¬ 
gations. Accordingly, 
. . j “Who killed Lincoln ?” and 
^ ) “Whom killed Booth?” (or “Whom did B, kill?”). 
Plainly the showings effected by the pregnant relatives of ( 2 ) 
are effected also by the interrogatives of (3). That is, in ad¬ 
dition to its meaning already noted, the interrogative offers 
guidance in the form of warning that an idea, already used as 
factor of one thought, is to' continue in attention, while further 
ideas join, with it in forming another thought; and the said 
idea’s particular factorship in that other thought, the interroga¬ 
tive (e. g. “Who?”) distinctly indicates. 
Moreover I do not see that, in the matter of guidance, the 
interrogative exhibits any addition to the power possessed by the 
relative and the pregnant “who” alike. Bjecapitulating then I 
find in the interrogative “Who?” the guidance offered by the 
relative “who;” but, instead of the no meaning proper of the 
relative “who,” I find in the interrogative “Who?” the very 
bulky meaning expressible by “I desire you to tell me him.” 
I am far from claiming that the interrogative word was, strictly 
speaking, derived from the relative. The former means to me too 
much, and the latter too little, to encourage such a theory. Moreover, 
-fat the date of developing the interrogative word, it remains to be 
proven that the language-maker found the relative word in existence; 
and in some languages he never found it. That in many languages he 
