 Identity theorists who favor (i) generally do so because they want to have nothing to do with propositions as such. That is to say, such theorists eschew propositions as reference-level entities: of course the word “proposition” may be, and sometimes is, applied to Fregean thoughts at the level of sense, rather than to Russellian propositions at the level of reference. For example, Hornsby (1997: 2–3) uses “proposition” and “thinkable” interchangeably. So far, this terminological policy might be considered neutral with respect to the location of propositions and thinkables in the Fregean semantic hierarchy: that is to say, if one encounters a theorist who talks about “thinkables” and “propositions”, even identifying them, one does not, just so far, know where in the semantic hierarchy this theorist places these entities. In particular, we cannot assume, unless we are specifically told so, that our theorist locates either propositions or thinkables at the level of sense. After all, someone who houses propositions at the level of reference holds that these reference-level entities are thinkable, in the sense that they are graspable in thought (perhaps via thoughts at the level of sense). But they are not thinkables if this latter word is taken, as it is by McDowell and Hornsby, to be a technical term referring to entities at the level of sense. For clarity the policy here will be to continue to apply the word “proposition” exclusively to Russellian propositions at the level of reference. Such propositions, it is plausible to suppose, can be grasped in thought, but by definition they are not thoughts or thinkables, where these two latter terms have, respectively, their Fregean and McDowellian meanings. It is worth noting that this point, though superficially a merely terminological one, engages significantly with the interface between the philosophies of language and mind that was touched on in the opening paragraph. Anyone who holds that reference-level propositions can, in the ordinary sense, be thought—are thinkable—is likely to be unsatisfied with any terminology that seems to limit the domain of the thinkable and of what is thought to the level of sense (On this point see further below in this section, and Gaskin 2020: 101–2).