^{page 210 note 1} Ethics and Language, 1945, p. 90.

^{page 210 note 2} In this usage it may have descriptive force at the same time, as Professor Stevenson’s second pattern of analysis has shown, but this is always supplementary.

^{page 211 note 1} Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume xxii, p. 109.

^{page 211 note 2} This seems to have been done by Mr. Kneale, W. in Philosophy, vol. 25, No. 93 (April, 1950), p. 149 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 212 note 1} Accordingly, it is misleading to claim that logical analysis is irrelevant to the question “One morality or many?”: cf. W. B. Gallie in Philosophy of October, 1949, p. 322. It helps to clarify the question, even if it does not answer it.

^{page 213 note 1} Ethics and Language, p. 137.

^{page 213 note 2} In Religion and the Rise of Capitalism.

^{page 215 note 1} Ethics and Language, pp. 138 and 274.

^{page 216 note 1} Ethics and Language, pp. 113 and 152 ff.

^{page 217 note 1} In Mind, October, 1949, p. 469 ff. In Mind of April, 1950, p. 223 ff., Mr. Baier has chosen to interpret Mr. Hampshire’s words in such a way that his suggestion appears either “meaningless” or “grotesquely untrue” or confused. However, I take Mr. Hampshire to be as sane as Mr. Baier, and I think it only fair to assume that he is not talking nonsense or paradox. I have interpreted him accordingly.

^{page 218 note 1} In the same article.

^{page 219 note 1} Ethics and Language, p. 174 ff.

^{page 219 note 2} Mr. S. Toulmin (Proc. Ar. Soc, 1949–50, p. 155) has suggested that the proper reply to a captious question such as this would be “And what have you in mind as an alternative?”

^{page 224 note 1} I am indebted to Mr. Eric Gillman on this point.