 Consider now the suggestion that obtaining states of affairs, as the correspondence theorist conceives them, make declarative sentences (as opposed to propositions) true (cf. Horwich 1998: 106–7). In this case there appears to be no threat of triviality of the sort that apparently plagued the previous version of the correspondence theory, because states of affairs like that Socrates is wise are genuinely distinct from linguistic items such as the sentence “Socrates is wise”. To that extent friends of the identity theory need not jib at the suggestion that such sentences have worldly truth-makers, if that is how the relation of correspondence is being glossed. But they might question the appropriateness of the gloss. For, they might point out, it does not seem possible, without falsification, to draw detailed links between sentences and bits of the world. After all, different sentences in the same or different languages can “correspond” to the same bit of the world, and these different sentences might have very different (numbers of) components. The English sentence “There are cows” contains three words: are there then three bits in the world corresponding to this sentence, and making it true? (cf. Neale 2001: 177). The sentence “Cows exist” contains only two words, but would not the correspondence theorist want to say that it was made true by the same chunk of reality? And when we take other languages into account, there seems in principle to be no reason to privilege any particular number and say that a sentence corresponding to the relevant segment of reality must contain that number of words: why might there not, in principle, be sentences of actual or possible languages such that, for any n ≥ 1, there existed a sentence comprising n words and meaning the same as the English “There are cows”? (In fact, is English not already such a language? Just prefix and then iterate ad lib. a vacuous operator like “Really”.)