There will now be two options: we may suppose that "judge that p" is an inadmissible locution, which one has no basis for applying; or we may suppose that "x judges that p" and "x judges' that p" are manifestationally equivalent, just because there can be no distinguishing behavioural manifestation.

 There will now be two options: we may suppose that "judge that p" is an inadmissible locution, which one has no basis for applying; or we may suppose that "x judges that p" and "x judges' that p" are manifestationally equivalent, just because there can be no distinguishing behavioural manifestation. The second option is preferable, if (a) we want to allow for the construction of a (possibly later) type, a talking pirot, which can express that it judges that p; and (b) to maintain as a general (though probably derivative) law that ceteris paribus if x expresses that $ then x judges that ф. The substitution of "x judges' that p" for "$" will force the admissibility of "x judges? that p". So we shall have to adopt as a law that x judges? that p iff x judges? that p. Exactly parallel reasoning will force the adoption of the law that x judges* that p if x judges? that p.