 (Fact), or what is the same thing, Dara standing in (Relation) to the property of swimming, is almost what King claims is the proposition that Dara swims. To see what more needs to be added, note that there is no reason to think that (Fact) has truth conditions and so is either true or false. But consider again (Relation), which relates Dara and the property of swimming in (Fact). Since Dara stands in (Relation) to the property of swimming in the proposition that Dara swims, call (Relation) the propositional relation of the proposition that Dara swims. Now if this propositional relation encoded ascription, as does the sentential relation R that is a component of the propositional relation, the proposition would have truth conditions. For in that case, the propositional relation would be interpreted as ascribing the property of swimming to Dara and so the proposition would be true iff Dara possesses the property of  swimming.[13]  Hence, King claims that the following fact is the proposition that Dara swims, where we now include as part of the fact/proposition that the propositional relation in it encodes ascription: there is a language L, a context c and lexical items a and b of L such that a and b occur at the left and right terminal nodes (respectively) of the sentential relation R that in L encodes ascription and Dara is the semantic value of a in c and the property of swimming is the semantic value of b in  c.[14]  Since Dara does possess the property of swimming, there is also the fact of her possessing this property. But note that this fact is quite distinct from the fact that King claims is the proposition that Dara swims. Still, the former makes the latter true. But had there been no fact of Dara possessing the property of swimming, the fact that is the proposition that Dara swims would still have existed and sadly would have been  false.[15]