  In fact, C2 does not imply that qualia are completely unspeakable—it does not, that is, imply that \(no\) expression refers to \(X\) (i.e., the quale distinctive of Humbert’s experiences of red things). Indeed, if the sentence to the right of ‘C2’ succeeds in expressing a truth, then ‘\(X\)’ (and so ‘the quale distinctive of Humbert’s experiences of red things’) refers to \(X\). If Argument E is as far as we can go, then the moral seems to be that particular qualia can only be picked out ‘by description’—they cannot be referred to by semantically simple expressions, such as ‘\(Q_{R}\)’ and  ‘\(Q_{G}\)’.[45]  But—bearing in mind Wittgenstein’s remark that “the box might even be empty”—one might attempt to extend the argument to show that even the word ‘qualia’ itself is devoid of significance.