 Consequently, there is some appeal to solutions of Prior’s Puzzle that discern an equivocation in the inference, or propose that the crucial terms, the proposition that Moriarty has returned and that Moriarty has returned, aren’t really coreferential as they occur in the inference. An approach of the first kind, in (King 2002), argues that the transitive and clausal forms of the intensional verb are polysemous, that is, weakly ambiguous (the two senses are related). This has been criticized on the basis of ellipsis examples, such as ‘Bob didn’t even mention the proposition that first-order logic is undecidable, let alone that it is provable’ (Boer 2009, 552), and ‘the Soviet authorities genuinely fear a religious revival, and that the contagion of religion will spread’ (after Nebel 2019, 77). Since these examples don’t strike one as amusingly incongruous, in the way that typical examples of zeugma do (‘All over Ireland the farmers grew potatoes, barley, and bored’), they are in tension with a postulation of polysemy. Consequently, Boer (2009) and Nebel (2019) propose that the problem lies in an equivocation in the terms the proposition that Moriarty has returned and that Moriarty has returned. On both their accounts, it is the propositional description ‘the proposition that…’ which fails to denote what one might expect. On the other hand, as evidence in favor of polysemy, there is the fact that some cases of ellipsis seem in some way anomalous, such as ‘John heard thunder and that a storm was rolling in’. Here the anomaly can be explained in terms of how different the two senses of ‘heard’ are.