On the subtext of a predicate

Predicates are not atomic. They do not come single spies, but freighted with battalions of inferable subtexts. Suppose Anthony says

Brutus killed Caesar in Rome during the ides of March

I learn more than just that ‘Brutus killed Caesar in Rome during the ides of March’. I also learn that

• Brutus is a killer
• Caesar has been killed
• Rome is a place where killings happen
• The ides of March are a time to be extra cautious

Suppose Drusilla now says

Longus killed Caesar in Rome during the ides of March

this casts doubt on Anthony’s primary claim, and on the belief that Brutus is a killer; but it reinforces the beliefs that

• Caesar has been killed
• Rome is a place where killings happen
• The ides of March are a time to be extra cautious.

If Falco then says

No, I heard from Gaius that it happened in April

the beliefs that

• Caesar has been killed
• Rome is a place where killings happen

are still further strengthened.

In proposing a formalism to express predicates, we need to consider how it allows this freight to be unpacked.