I take up OHS 0f the issues raised by P.II.S. Hacker in his “Nittgcnstcin, Carnap and the New American Vittg€HS[€iHi3HS’,l namely, the role 0f the notion 0f logical syntax within the Tmctatus. It seems t0 me that Hacker plays fast and 100sc with the text at 21 couplc 0fsigniF1czint points, and makes 21 questionable use 0f 21112110gy. I shall explain these claims, and then say what I take t0 be thc implications for 0ur understanding 0f thc Tmcmtus. It will bc useful if I summarize bri€Hy the tw0 contrasting accounts 0f logical syntax in thc Tmctatus, Hzickcr’s, and the View he criticizes, that Ofjamcs Conant. According t0 Hacker, Nittgcnstcin held in thc Tmctatus that we produce nonsensical pseudo-propositions when we use signs in ways which contravene the rules 0f logical syntax for thc signs. The resulting pseudo-propositions are nonscnsical because they usc signs in ways which are excluded by the rules. The signs thus used d0 not indeed have their usual meaning, 01* any Other meaning, but the sourcc 0f the nonscnsicality 0f the wouid-bc propositions in which they Occur is the usc 0f signs in contrzwcntion 0f the rules. An important part 0f the Tmctatus view, as Hacker sees it, is the idea that, in establishing permissible combinzitions 0f words, the rules 0f logical...