Permit me to reply to your two last points. Concerning "bachelors are unmarried men", please look here: http://www.thelogician.net/6_reflect/6_Book_2/6b_chapter_02.htm The proposition "bachelors are unmarried men" may appear in people's minds in one of two ways. Either (1) we arrived empirically at the idea that "there are unmarried men" and then decided to attach a name to this phenomenon, viz. "bachelor"; or (2) we found texts about "unmarried men", and other texts about "bachelors" and eventually realized from context that the two terms are equivalent. In case (1) although the new name being attached is a conventional act, there is no added knowledge, and it is ridiculous to speak of "analysis", not to mention that "unmarried men" is a concept based on experience (of men, of the social institution of marriage). In case (2) the tying together of two separate threads is not an "analytic" equation but an inductive act based on observation of contexts of use, and understanding of these contexts depends on experience of course. Try doing all that with the content-less "C are BA" - is even this analytic truth? As regards, taking into consideration the perception of "words on the page" as you put it - this relates to mathematical proofs. Many mathematical proofs are based on the manipulation of symbolic objects (whether as ink on paper or dots on a computer screen or in mental imagination). The behavior of these symbolic objects are effectively the empirical basis of the mathematical principles. The fact that physical objects like apples or mental objects like imagined apples are not used, but symbols like a, b, c changes nothing to the empiricism involved. Without the visualization of something there is no mathematical proof. So it cannot be said to be purely analytical, i.e. purely based on rational insight, without any content whatsoever. Similarly in logic - the laws of thought have no meaning if not "applied" to something more concrete. Even spoken in terms of symbols (as in "A is A") their meaning proceeds form the concrete percepts involved (A, is). As I said before, to ignore some elements of one's own discourse, and try to formulate philosophical, logical or mathematical ideas without taking into account ALL its constituents, is idiocy.

Something about you (optional) logician-philosopher

Interesting discussion! So is there any merit in the "Analytic-synthetic" distinction?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic–synthetic_distinction

According to Kant,a proposition whose predicate concept is contained in its subject concept is analytic, and a proposition whose predicate concept is not contained in its subject concept but related, is synthetic. The term "related" seems a bit vague here - related in what way?

an example of an analytic proposition is: All bachelors are unmarried
an example of a synthetic proposition is: All bachelors are alone

But both subjects here refer to the meaning of "bachelor", and the so-called synthetic proposition can be deduced from the analytic one.

To me it all seems like much ado about nothing.

Hi McCoy - there's no such thing as purely analytic propositions (i.e. not based on experience) - all are synthetic to some extent (i.e. based on experience). Kant was a brainy guy, but in many ways also confused. If you have not read my little book "A short critique of Kant's unreason," I recommend it.
My main website is having tech problems right now, but you can read it here: http://tl-archive.net/6_reflect/6_Book_2/6_book_2.htm