 But as Brueckner himself had earlier pointed out (1986: 165; 1995: 100)), while we can in this manner know that disquotational sentences like (B*) are true, we cannot know which truth is being expressed until we know which language is being spoken. In this case, if the speaker is a BIV speaking vat-English, then (B*) would mean “My utterances of ‘trees are green’ are true iff trees* are green” (where ‘trees*’ expresses one of the three possible types of meanings that Putnam suggests for ‘tree’ in vat-English). So on the assumption that the speaker is a BIV speaking vat-English, premise (B*) would be true. However, the conclusion (C) of the argument would then mean ‘I am not a BIV*’, and while this conclusion would also be true, it is also irrelevant to Putnam’s desired conclusion (in English) ‘I am not a BIV’. Moreover, note that if understood to be in vat-English, the premise (A*) would be false.