So I got into an interesting discussion with Alan Rhoda about the relation between rational assertability and meaning. He suggested that: Whatever anyone must believe in order rationally to assert a proposition p is part of the meaning of p. and used this assumption to argue for the the Peircean semantics for the future tense (on this view, the future tense is intrinsically modal , and to assert that an event E "will" happen implies that the world is now tending strongly (probability > 0.5) toward E's happening.). I begged to differ. More details here . The discussion continues here .