A very natural objection to the way in which I have introduced e.g. propositions of the form x R y is that by it propositions such as (∃. x. y). x R y and similar ones are not explained, which yet obviously have in common with a R b what c R d has in common with a R b. But when we introduce propositions of the form x R y we mentioned no one particular proposition of this form; and we only need to introduce (∃ x,y). φ(x,y) for all φ's in any way which makes the sense of these propositions dependent on the sense of all propositions of the form φ(a, b), and thereby the justification || justness of our procedure is proved.