What's so bad about the bad approach

by JLS
for the GC

If this approach that leaves lexical entries as 'unidentified' is bad, the consequences for any possible adoption in a system of natural deduction would have it that

"the formula", Grice has it on p. 123 of "Vacuous Names"

"Fa v Gb"

"will be a structure exemplified by a sub-class

of the sentences which exemplify the structure

"Fa"".

If one were to adopt this approach, Grice notes,

one should "have had to allow not only

F1a2, etc., but also

F2a1 as formulae."

---

i.e. with the predicate constant bearing a higher subscript than the constant of 'subject'.

----

Plus, one

"should also have had to provide atomic

formulae which would have

substitution instances, e.g.

F1a2 )3 G1b2,

in which the scope of the individual

constants does not embrace the

whole formula."

Pretty despairing, no?

Not really. He adds, at the concluding segment of his discussion of the fourth feature regarding scope-precedence of his system:

"[this approach, however bad] COULD be accomodated, howevre, with appropriate changes."

---- should you require an entry to MIT! Ha!