 some individual\(x\) is such that he\(x\) is a boy, and every (relevant) individual\(y\) is such that if he\(y\) is a boy, then he\(y\) is identical with him\(x\), and he\(x\) sang. The awkward middle conjunct was Russell’s way of expressing uniqueness with Fregean tools; cf.  section seven.  But rewriting the middle conjunct would not affect Russell’s technical point, which is that ‘the boy’ does not correspond to any constituent of the formalism. This in turn reflects Russell’s central claim—viz., that while a speaker may refer to a certain boy in saying ‘The boy sang’, the boy in question is not a constituent of the proposition indicated. According to Russell, the proposition has the form of an existential quantification with a bound variable. It does not have the form of a function saturated by (an argument that is) the boy referred to. The proposition is general rather than singular. In this respect, ‘the boy’ is like ‘some boy’ and ‘every boy’; though on Russell’s view, not even ‘the’ indicates a constituent of the proposition expressed.