The best response on behalf of the defender of the method of paraphrase is to reject the assumption that the goal of paraphrase is to capture the truth conditions, or the ontological commitments, of the original. For Quine, an acceptable paraphrase is just a sentence that “serves any purposes [of the original] that seem worth serving” (Quine 1960: 214). A stronger notion of paraphrase is ruled out because the truth conditions, and so the ontological commitments, of sentences in ordinary language are, for the most part, semantically indeterminate. In applying the method of paraphrase, we ask the philosopher to make her ordinary language theory precise through the process of regimentation, not to uncover the hidden commitments of the original theory.[43] If she complies, then the ontological commitments of the regimented theory can be attributed to her.  But there is no going back to assign ontological commitments to the original theory couched in ordinary language.[44]