 then the inference is an instance of the schema ‘\(\textbf{A} \land \textbf{B}\), so \(\textbf{A}\)’. But if the logical form of ‘The boy sang’ is simply ‘\(!(x){:}B(x)[S(x)]\)’, the premise and conclusion have the same form, differing only by substitution of ‘\(!\)’ for ‘\(\exists\)’. In which case, the impeccability of the inference depends on the specific contributions of ‘the/\(!\)’ and ‘some/\(\exists\)’. Only when these contributions are “spelled out,” perhaps in terms of set-intersection, would the validity of the inference be manifest; see, e.g., King (2002). So even if grammar and logic do not diverge in this case, one might say that grammatical structure does not reveal the logical structure. From this perspective, further analysis of ‘the’ is required. Those who are skeptical of an analytic/synthetic distinction can say that it remains more a decision than a discovery to say that ‘Some boy sang’ follows from ‘The boy sang’. In general, and especially with regard to aspects of propositional form indicated with individual words, issues about logical form are connected with issues about the  analytic-synthetic distinction.