 That, according to the correspondence theorist (and the identity theorist can agree so far), immediately gives us a constraint on the shape of worldly facts. Take our sample sentence “Socrates is wise”, and recall that this sentence is here assumed to be true. At the level of reference we encounter the object Socrates and (assuming realism about  properties)[5]  the property of wisdom. Both of these may be taken to be entities in the world, but it is plausible that neither amounts to a fact: neither amounts to a plausible truth-maker for the sentence “Socrates is wise”, or for its expressed thought, or for its expressed proposition. That is because the man Socrates, just as such, and the property of wisdom, just as such, are not, so the argument goes, propositionally structured, either jointly or severally, and so do not amount to enough to make it true that Socrates is wise (cf. D. Armstrong 1997: 115–16; Dodd 2008a: 7; Hofweber 2016: 288). Even if we add in further universals, such as the relation of instantiation, and indeed the instantiation of instantiation to any degree, the basic point seems to be unaffected. In fact it can plausibly be maintained (although some commentators disagree; Merricks 2007: ch. 1, passim, and pp. 82, 117, 168; Asay 2013: 63–4; Jago 2018: passim, e.g., pp. 73, 84, 185, 218, 250, though cf. p. 161) that the man Socrates, just as such, is not even competent to make it true that Socrates exists; for that we need the existence of the man Socrates. Hence, it would appear that, if there are to be truth-makers in the world, they will have to be structured, syntactically or quasi-syntactically, in the same general way as declarative sentences, thoughts, and propositions. For convenience we can refer to structure in this general sense as “propositional structure”: the point then is that neither Socrates, nor the property of wisdom, nor (if we want to adduce it) the relation of instantiation is, just as such, propositionally structured. Following this line of argument through, we reach the conclusion that nothing short of full-blown, propositionally structured entities like the fact that Socrates is wise will be competent to make the sentence “Socrates is wise”, or the thought or proposition expressed by that sentence, true. (A question that arises here is whether tropes might be able to provide a “thinner” alternative to such ontologically “rich” entities as the fact that Socrates is wise. One problem that seems to confront any such strategy is that of making the proposed alternative a genuine one, that is, of construing the relevant tropes in such a way that they do not simply collapse into, or ontologically depend on, entities of the relatively rich form that Socrates is wise. For discussion see Dodd 2008a: 7–9.)