On the far end of the spectrum is the view that ordinary language quantifiers, by themselves, are never ontologically committing. A Carnapian might hold this view as a consequence of her general view that ontological commitment, in a metaphysically loaded sense of the term, is incoherent (see §5.1). A Meinongian might hold this view on the grounds that it is only the existence predicate, not the quantifier, that conveys ontological commitment. The Meinongian, however, is in a weak position when she claims that quantification over non-existent objects fails to be ontologically committing (see §1.6.3); for non-existent objects don't differ from existent objects in their instantiation of properties, or their having natures independent of our theorizing. Azzouni (2004), like the Meinongian, takes the existence predicate to be what conveys ontological commitment; but, unlike the Meinongian, he denies that our talk of non-existent objects requires that they have any sort of independent being. The tie between ontology and quantification is completely severed. All quantification—like Hofweber's “inference role” reading of the quantifier—is ontologically neutral.