 is true, but that there is no similar scenario involving a present emperor of Canada. A sentence like  (14)  is a natural way of recording this fact. But now we face a problem. As Caplan (2004) points out, taking  (11)  as an evidence for the genuine existence of what van Inwagen calls creatures of fiction suggests that we should, by parity of reasoning, take (14) as evidence for the genuine existence of sui generis creatures of the imagination. Or, to put the point the other way round, if we don’t think that linguistically-based reasons such as the availability of an (apparently) true quantified sentence like (14) commit us to bizarre entities like Nappy, we should not think that such reasons commit us to fictional entities either. For variants of the problem and complications, see Kroon (2011, 2013, 2015).