 Unfortunately, the precision hoped for is undermined by the ambiguity in the meaning of the particle eva. The particle eva has two principal uses: one emphatic, the other restrictive. What it emphasizes or restricts depends on the word after which it is placed. The particle in the statement of the first form applies to the abstract noun existence and, in its emphatic use, is well translated by definite or actual. The particle in the statement of the third form applies to the negative abstract noun non-existence and, in its emphatic use with negation, is best translated by utter or at all. (Some scholars translate the particle in these statements as necessary. There is, however, no philological justification for such a translation.) The particle in the second form applies to a concrete noun. Though here the particle could have either an emphatic or a restrictive use, only the restrictive use fits the context. A problem arises from the word subject-like (sa-pakṣa). It can be construed in two ways: either as including or as excluding the subject. If subject-like is construed as inclusive and the particle eva is taken as restrictive, then the second and third forms are logically equivalent; but the statement of the three forms has the rhetorical blemish of containing a logically superfluous form. If subject-like is taken as exclusive and the particle is taken as restrictive, then the three forms are inconsistent, for in that case the second form entails the contradictory of the first form. (For details, see Gillon 1999.)