 Wittgenstein’s first definition, like Russell’s, strictly speaking, stands in need of a device for indicating scope, for otherwise it would be unclear how to apply the analysis when we choose, say, “~G” as our instance of “F.” In such a case the question would arise whether the resulting instance of [3] is [5]: “~G[aRb] = ~Ga &amp; ~Gb &amp; aRb,” which corresponds to giving the term for a complex wide scope with respect to the negation operator, or whether it is: [6] “~G[aRb] = ~[Ga &amp; Gb &amp; aRb],” which corresponds to giving the term for a complex narrow scope. One suspects that Wittgenstein’s intention would most likely have been to follow Russell’s convention of reading the logical operator as having narrow scope unless the alternative is expressly indicated (cf. PM, 172). 