 One option (Groenendijk and Stokhof 1982) is to take a wh-complement to denote a proposition, just like a that-complement. A second option (Karttunen 1977) is to take wh-complements to denote sets of propositions. In either case, John’s knowing who walks consists in the obtaining of a relation between John and the denotation of the expression ‘who walks’. On the view that wh-complements denote single propositions, wh-complements and that-complements are treated uniformly, and Groenendijk and Stokhof (1982) contend that this uniform treatment is a virtue of their theory. Lewis (1982) favors the same sort of account, but he applies it only to whether-complements. Theiler et al. (2018) propose a uniform analysis of that- and wh-complements in the inquisitive semantics framework, overcoming certain limitations of Groenendijk and Stokhof’s partition semantics.