 No philosopher or linguist would appeal to sentences such as  (1a, b, c)  when arguing for an ontology of artifacts, of states distinct from events, or of nonexistent entities. Otherwise, another philosopher or linguists might just as well appeal to the negations of  (1a, b, c),  which are equally acceptable, to argue for just the opposite. Such uses of language do not display the ontology implicit in natural language, but rather ontological views based on reasoning, that is, ontologies that philosophers accept when thinking about there is or ontologies that non-philosophers (“the folk”) naively accept when thinking about what there is. The latter are the subject matter of folk metaphysics (Schaffer 2019), the analogue of folk physics and folk biology.