If we suppress all issues of how meanings are determined, how meanings in turn pick out references, and all issues of what counts as a possible state of affairs, that is, if we abstract all this away, the common feature of every designating term is that designation may change from state to state thus it can be formalized by a function from states to objects.
More generally, a designating term within the that-clause is open to exportation, transforming a syntactically de dicto propositional attitude ascription into a semantically and metaphysically de re one, precisely when that expression is directly referential.
It should be noted that although it is customary within homecare research to use the term clients for those receiving care, we will use the WHO designated term, thus referring to clients as patients.
Hence, the weekly PBL tutorials, activities and assessment tasks were aligned with the designated term, an essential process to keep the curriculum and assessment process uniform across all geographical locations within the School of Medicine.
Recognition that designating terms have a dual nature is far from recent.
But what concerns us here is how Carnap treats designating terms in such a setting.
It should be noted that the examples of designating terms just given are all definite descriptions.
Thus designating terms behave as they did before, but nothing can be truly asserted about non-designating terms.
For rigidly designating terms, this raises the question of how to evaluate atomic formulas at worlds in which their referents do not exist.
This is to accept a form of latitudinarianism about de re attitudes, according to which (nonempty) designating terms within propositional attitude verbs freely export outside the scope of propositional attitude verbs.
