It sounds like you&#x27;re thinking of a statement like &quot;there is a prime number&quot; being interpreted as Fa (where a purports to be the name of a number, and F means exist). But really, it should be interpreted as Ex Fx--there exists some x such that Fx.<p>The second statement is meaningful as long as F is meaningful, and whether F is meaningful is <i>not</i> a matter of whether there are any things such that F. A predicate can be semantically meaningful without having anything satisfy it.<p>This is much like the mistake that Russell criticized in On Denoting, with the difference that he discussed definite descriptions. But the error is the same: he attacked opponents who thought that &quot;the present king of france is bald&quot; was either meaningless, or required some sort of bizzaro existence for the present King of France. And Russell&#x27;s move was to analyze the statement as claiming there is something that is the King of France, there is only one thing that is the King of France, and that thing is bald. And clearly, that is a meaningful conjunction, though there is no present King of France.