 Different versions of positionalism vary with regard to \((i)\) the nature of argument positions, crucially upon whether they can be shared by different relations, and \((ii)\) the variety of argument positions, whether there are different kinds of position specifically suited to different kinds of relata, and \((iii)\) the complexity of the relation whereby things are assigned to positions. According to Orilia’s onto-thematic role view, positions are capable of recurring in different relations and suited by their nature to different sorts of filling (Orilia 2011, 2014, Paolini Paoletti 2016, 2018b sec. 2, and for an earlier version inspired by Leibniz, Orilia 2008). For example, the loves relation has agent and patient roles, roles which also recur in the hates relation. Other more complex relations involve more and different roles, for example, theme, location, instrument, goal etc. Orilia’s idea is that the schedule of ontological roles belonging to relations should be informed by the linguistic programme of identifying thematic roles in natural language because this helps us to provide informative generalisations about what different relations have in common (see Davis 2011 for a helpful introduction to the thematic role literature in linguistics).