 Geach makes the additional claim that the ontological commitments of a sublanguage \(L'\) of a language \(L\) are inherited by \(L\) (Geach 1973). Suppose then that \(L\) is a language containing expressions for several equivalence relations defined on people: say, same income, same surname, and same job. Geach argues that \(L\) need only be committed to the existence of people. Things such as income groups, job groups (equivalence classes of people with the same job), and surmen can all be counted using the equivalencies, without bringing surmen, job groups, and income groups into the picture. Consider any sublanguage for which any one of these equivalence relations is a congruence, i.e., for which \(\textrm{LL}'\) holds.  Pick the language, \(L_1\), for example, in which people having the same job are indiscernible. More precisely, we assume that \(T_1\) is the pure theory with identity whose ideology is confined to the language \(L_1\). Let \(M_1\) be a model of \(T_1\). We may imagine the domain of \(M_1\) to consist of people, and we can interpret indiscernibility in \(M_1\) to be the relation x and y have the same job. Geach would argue that if \(L_1\) is committed to the elements of \(QM_1\) — the job groups — then so is \(L\).  But that is not true. If \(T\) is a theory of the three distinct equivalence relations formulated in \(L\), the most \(T\) (or \(L)\) would be committed to are the partitions determined by the equivalence relations; and in any case, it would be perfectly consistent to insist that, whatever the ontological commitments of \(L_1\), reality, as described by \(L\), consists of people.