 The other “dogma of empiricism” that Quine discerned in Carnap was his adherence to “the” analytic-synthetic distinction. Unlike Quine, though, Carnap was not primarily interested in defining analyticity for natural language, but rather in the construction of linguistic frameworks for which a coherent notion of analyticity could be defined in precise terms. Nor did Carnap imagine that there was a single unique such distinction; he thought rather that any such distinction had to be language-relative and himself constructed precise definitions of analyticity for a number of linguistic frameworks with different applications. True, Carnap also attempted in Syntax to give a general definition of “analytic” that would apply to all languages, but did not think even at the time that he had succeeded. He went on trying to find one, but never seriously proposed a solution. So Quine’s criticism of Carnap’s lack of definition of ‘analytic-in-language-L’ with variable ‘L’ was definitely sound, but it ran in open doors, as Carnap had never claimed to have supplied such a definition even to his own satisfaction. It is a matter of ongoing debate, though, whether Quine’s concerns somehow undermined Carnap’s definitions of analyticity for particular formal frameworks and whether these constructed and language-relative notions of analyticity (the existence of which was of course acknowledged by Quine) satisfied the conceptual role that Carnap ascribed to them. In any case, Carnap himself did not think that every language had to have analytic sentences. Most sophisticated language frameworks, especially those equipped for scientific statements, would need them, since the analytic sentences are just those that “come with” the framework (by being provable by the rules of the framework without further assumptions), but it is possible, Carnap thought, to design a language that has no analytic sentences. (In terms of a modern analogy: there are systems of non-classical logic, such as three-valued Strong-Kleene logic, which include an interesting and well-defined logical consequence relation, but where the set of logically true statements is empty.) He did not think this worth pursuing, though, since to him it was obvious that such a language would not be scientifically useful. He often cited Einstein’s (1921) insistence that without Hilbert’s strict distinction between physical geometry and mathematical “purely axiomatic” geometry (the latter of which was regarded as analytic by Carnap), Einstein could never have formulated the theory of relativity.