 But Brueckner persuasively argues (1986: 164–165) that using the disquotational principle (T) in this context is illegitimate. In effect, (T) as used in this context is ambiguous (see Folina 2016: 159). Depending on whether the speaker is or is not a BIV, (T) will provide different truth conditions for the speaker’s utterances of ‘I am not a BIV’. If the speaker is not a BIV and thus is speaking English in uttering (T), then the truth condition for ‘I am not a BIV’ is just the condition that the speaker is not a BIV. But if the speaker is a BIV, then the truth condition expressed by ‘I am not a BIV’ is the condition that the speaker is not a BIV*, where ‘BIV*’ has the vat-English meaning of ‘BIV’, whatever it is (perhaps one of the three meanings that Putnam suggests). Note that on this interpretation, the argument’s conclusion (that the speaker is not a BIV*) is simply irrelevant, since Putnam’s desired conclusion is ‘I am not a BIV’ in its English sense.