 A further objection to the identity theory, going back to an observation of Strawson’s, takes its cue from the point that canonical names of propositions and of facts are often not straightforwardly congruent with one another: they are often not intersubstitutable salva congruitate (or, if they are, they may not be intersubstitutable salva veritate) (Strawson 1971: 196; cf. Künne 2003: 10–12). For example, we say that propositions are true, not that they obtain, whereas we say that facts obtain, not that they are true. How serious is this point? The objection in effect presupposes that for two expressions to be co-referential, or satisfied by one and the same thing, they must be syntactically congruent, have the same truth-value potential, and match in terms of general contextual suitability. The assumption of the syntactic congruence of co-referential expressions is controversial, and it may be possible for the identity theorist simply to deny it (see Gaskin 2008: 106–10, for argument on the point, with references to further literature; cf. Dodd 2008a: 83–6.). Whether co-referential expressions must be syntactically congruent depends on one’s conception of reference, a matter that cannot be further pursued here (for discussion see Gaskin 2008: ch. 2; 2020: chs. 3–5).