 It is possible, then, that the options we began with represent a false dichotomy. Perhaps Wittgenstein simply did not have an antecedent opinion on the question whether Tractarian names will turn out to be names of particulars only, particulars and universals, or whatnot. And perhaps he believed that the final analysis of language would (or might) reveal the names to defy such classifications altogether. This broader range of interpretive possibilities has only recently begun to receive the attention it deserves (See Johnston 2009).