I analyze a mysterious cross-linguistic gap: the general lack of verbal wh-words ranging over any eventuality type. I will revisit the patterns attested in the literature arguing (i) that many of the alleged interrogative verbs are merely verbal forms employed in questions that do not question the type of eventuality at stake (such as in Kalaallisut, Nivkh, Kwamera, Lavukaleve, etc.), (ii) that often, rather than atomic and unanalyzable, interrogative verbs are syntagmatic (of the ‘do what’ type, as in Tianjin Mandarin, Yongxin Gan, Chongqing Mandarin, Huallaga Quechua, Wikchami, Mian, etc.), and, (iii) that the very few languages that do have interrogative verbs that question the type of eventuality necessarily involve a specific argument-structure (such as in Tyvan, Evenki, a range of Mongolic languages, Erromangan, Dyirbal, or Kavalan). From this discussion I conclude that there are no genuine interrogative verbs unrestrictedly ranging over any eventuality type. My proposal is that this gap derives from the ill-formed semantic representations they would generate: verbs are predicates of eventualities, and predication (≈ logical attribution/adscription) and questioning (≈ logical querying) are incompatible. Last, I argue that my proposal also predicts the universal lack of other conceivable interrogative elements such as adpositions or tense markers.