This claim of intertranslatability is difficult to maintain (see Hawthorne 2009). But suppose it can be made good: what would that say about ontological commitment? Since theories that assert “there are Ks” and theories that assert “there are no Ks” need not conflict, one cannot simply look to the quantifiers for ontological commitment. Moreover, since no language, and no quantifier, is ontologically privileged, it would not help to first translate into a single language. We could relativize the notion of ontological commitment to languages; but given that reality itself, for Hirsch, isn't ontologically structured, none of these relativized notions of ontological commitment would be getting at something of ontological significance (including the one that gave ontological commitment relative to ordinary language, and ordinary language quantifiers). All theories, it appears, are ontologically committed to the single reality, and the unstructured facts that comprise it; but that commitment does not come from quantification. Where it comes from is not addressed.