This paper takes issue with the widely prevailing assumption that the “charge” (ming ci) in a Shang oracle inscription must always be understood as a question. I hold that we must distinguish between what the diviner is saying in the charge, and what he is doing in the whole divination rite. What he is doing is not always seeking information; and even when he is doing this, what he says is usually not a question. I present various arguments and examples to show this, e.g.:

(1) Li Hsüeh-ch'in's research proves that the oracle language possessed grammatical forms, such as final particles and final negatives, for marking a sentence as a question. Therefore, I hold, our first assumption should be that when a diviner does not use these forms, he does not intend his sentence to be understood as a question.

(2) When two sentences in the same inscription -- e.g., charge and prognostication -- are alike in form (both of them being without final negatives or particles), it is a mistake to construe one of them as a question and the other as a statement. But a prognostication must be a statement.