 Here we see a contrast with (4*)–(6*): to explain the fact reported by (8*) by citing the fact reported by (7*) is unsatisfying, since (7*) is left unexplained. Moreover, (7*), unlike (4*), does not state a brute semantic fact–a fact that cannot be further explained in semantic terms. It is clear that, if ‘the author of Waverly’ is a singular term and, contra Russell, has meaning in isolation, then the relation between it and its denotation, Scott, cannot be like the one that obtains between ‘Scott’ and Scott.