 She makes a foray into grammatical theory to illustrate the possibility of this distinction between senses of “object”. Consider the sentence “Luke gave Leia his lightsaber”. If asked “What object did Luke give Leia?”, we would reply “his lightsaber”. And if asked for the direct object of the sentence, we would again reply “his lightsaber”. But although “his lightsaber” is indeed the direct object of the sentence, Luke did not give Leia a direct object; to think otherwise is to confuse the two senses. Moreover, “his lightsaber” is the direct object of this sentence, even though no lightsaber materially exists. It would be foolish to object to the claim that the direct object of the sentence is “his lightsaber” on the grounds that lightsabers aren’t real. Anscombe’s insight is that likewise there are also objects of perception in both a material and an intentional sense.