Why Lewis found 'in sensu divison' problematic but a Griceian shouldn't

In that same section of his ch. 5 of his thesis, Dale cites further from Lewis,

"... in sensu diviso is problematic because

expectation and the like apply fundamentally

to states of affairs. If I expect that each

driver will keep right, I do expect a state of

affairs: each driver will keep right. But if

I expect, of each driver, that he will keep

right, what states of affairs do I expect? "He

will keep right" does not specify any state of

affairs until the pronoun has been replaced

by some sort of description - verbal,

pictorial, or otherwise - of the person

in question."



---- I wouldn't know what to expect of the late Lewis. Or, to be honest, the late Grice. But Grice would think that quantification was somehow misguided.

There's 'boy', 'the boy', and 'some boy'. He also speaks of one SPECIAL 'object', which he calls:

'the altogether boy'

This contrasts with another boy, whom he meets (also on 'special' occasions -- since he is a special object) and which Grice calls:

'the one-at-a-time boy'

I propose

the each boy

as yet another of them [sic] special boys. Etc.