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

E 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.