Oweni—Interrogative Thought—Means of Its Expression . 443 
value (structural and instructional) from “I wish you to tell 
me the person (him) who” into “Tell me the person who/’ I see 
that it should rank as an imperative sentence. I further note 
that the idea named by “person”—that is, a part of the meaning 
of “Who?”—is to serve, without an intervening disappearance 
from attention, as particular factor (subject) in a coming 
thought/—a thought expressible/, for instance, by “the person 
killed Lincoln.” Generalizing on my observation, I rank the 
interrogative word as ordinarily a one-word imperative sentence, 
one factor of which is signalized as also simultaneously a partic¬ 
ular factor in another sentence yet to come. 
The ordinary value of the interrogative word is often re¬ 
duced, such word renouncing the indication of particular second 
factorship, as in “What killed Lincoln ?” (that is, “I wish you to 
tell me that which killed Lincoln”) an expression in which the 
interrogative “What?” does not announce its indefinite element 
“that,” as either subject or object of “killed.” 
The ordinary value of the interrogative word is also some¬ 
times much augmented. For instance, when used alone, as 
sequel to a statement such as “Some one killed Lincoln,” the 
“Who ?” alone not only means “Tell me the person (,him)”, but 
also (with a power now for the first time strictly pronominal) 
reinstates ideas expressed by “killed” and “Lincoln.” That is, 
the “Who ?” has all the meaning of the expression “Tell me the 
person (,him) killed Lincoln.” In such a case the so-called in¬ 
terrogative word should rank as a pair of sentences with a simul¬ 
taneous factor marked for particular service in the second 
sentence. 
To ask ‘What part of speech is “Who ?” 9 must therefore seem 
to me an idle question. This “Who?” is not a part, of speech, 
but as others, I think, have said, a speech in itself—the pre¬ 
sentation of a thought which is always complete in form, and, 
in the case, last noted, complete in substance also. With still 
broader generality it may then be concluded, that the interroga¬ 
tive word is the linguistic equivalent of always one and some¬ 
times both of a pair of sentences linked by a factor signalized 
as simultaneous, and often marked for a particular service in the 
second sentence. 
