Full Idea
We are taught that predicates have extensions - the class of objects of which the predicate is true - which seems hard to deny; but a stronger claim is also made - that extensions are semantically relevant features of predicates.
Gist of Idea
Clearly predicates have extensions (applicable objects), but are the extensions part of their meaning?
Source
Colin McGinn (Logical Properties [2000], Ch.3)
Book Reference
McGinn,Colin: 'Logical Properties' [OUP 2003], p.52
A Reaction
He cites Quine as a spokesman for this view. McGinn is going on to challenge it, by defending universals. It seems to fit in with other externalist theories of concepts and meanings, none of which seems very appealing to me.