 For this case, the pluralist’s suggestion that 3 objects exist-in-\(E\) but 7 objects exist-in-\(M\) is not clearly warranted. There are simpler explanations: one is that by ‘object’ Ernie means ordinary object, by ‘object’ Maxi means mereological object. Nothing deeper than that is required to explain their disagreement. Rather than existence or truth that is relativized, the meanings of their terms differ. On this account, pluralists have mistaken a plurality of meanings for a plurality of modes of being. However, other explanations are also possible: for instance, it may be that Ernie and Maxi do mean the same thing by ‘object’ but hold incompatible theories about what counts as an object. More importantly, as a reviewer noted, the debate need not turn on the notion of an object: it can proceed with quantifiers, for example. The disagreement then would arise from divergent interpretations of those quantifiers.