. . ." Let us simply regard that quantifier as restricted in the appropriate way. The same restriction will apply to the "at most one thing," and so we lose the unwanted implication that there is at most one table in the universe; (10) will now imply only that there is at most one table of the contextually indicated sort, which is fine. The appeal to restricted quantification differs from the ellipsis hypothesis, in that it does not require that explicit conceptual material be clandestinely mentioned in (10). The quantifier restriction is more like a silent demonstra- tive pronoun: "At most one table of that sort," where the context fixes the reference of "that." So we seem to have solved the table problem on Russell's behalf. But there are more aggravated problem cases. Consider (11): (11) If a bishop meets another bishop, the bishop blesses the other bishop. (Heim 1990) For further examples, see Reimer (1992), Stanley and Szabó (2000), Ludlow
by other persons who obtain access to the file. It is not to be forgotten that our sex laws and public opinion are so far out of accord with common and everyday patterns of social behavior that many persons might become involved in social or legal difficulties if their sexual histories became publicly known." Lovers could sometimes find themselves in the same difficulties if their liaisons became known. Consequently Ovid, in his Art of Love, offered counsel on how to correspond clandestinely, mentioning some primitive forms of secret ink: Tuta quoque est fallitque oculus e lacte recenti Littera: carbonis pulvere tange, leges. Pallet et umiduli quae fiet acumine lini, Et feret occultas pura tabella notas. Or: "A letter is also safe and escapes the eye when written in new milk; touch it with coal dust and you will read. That too will deceive which is written with a stalk of moistened flax, and a pure sheet will bear hidden marks
annaabi.ee 
