I first focus on Gomez-Torrente’s defense of a neo-Kripkean treatment of theoretical identification statements like “Water is H₂O” against objections (a) that ‘water’ is vague and (b) that ‘H₂O’ does not designate a genuine explanatory kind. On my reading, Gomez-Torrente accepts (a) and (b) while interpreting the identity statement as correctly attributing vague identity to the pair consisting of the vague natural kind water and the related kind H₂O. My discussion sketches a framework for making sense talk of vague objects, properties, and identities that seems to fit his discussion. Next I focus on his treatment of a problem posed by seemingly conflicting perceptual reports of secondary qualities, like being hot, or red, made by equally competent observers. Since the observers are equally competent, it is hard to explain the apparent inconsistency. Whereas Gomez-Torrente treats the reports as so fine-grained as not to conflict, I suggest dispensing with ultrafine-grained semantic contextual parameters in favor of richer pragmatic parameters determining negotiated asserted contents. Next I question whether his plausible individually sufficient but not disjunctively necessary rules for uses of names and demonstratives should be understood as providing speaker referents versus contributions to illocutionary contents of uses of sentences containing those terms. Finally, I explain why I take the crowning jewel of the book to be the account in chapter 4 of natural numbers as plural cardinality properties, and of verbal, and Arabic, numerals as Millian names of those properties, the referents of which are fixed by genuinely semantic reference-fixing expressions.

我首先关注 Gomez-Torrente 对“水是 H ₂ O”等理论识别陈述的新克里普克处理的辩护，反对反对意见（a）“水”含糊不清，（b）“H ₂ O”不指定一种真正的解释性的。在我的阅读中，Gomez-Torrente 接受 (a) 和 (b)，同时将身份陈述解释为正确地将模糊的身份归因于由模糊的自然种类水和相关种类 H ₂ O组成的对。我的讨论勾勒出一个框架似乎适合他的讨论的模糊对象、属性和身份的感觉谈论。接下来，我将重点放在他对次要品质的看似相互矛盾的感知报告所带来的问题的处理上，例如热，或红色，由同样称职的观察员制作。由于观察者的能力相同，因此很难解释明显的不一致。鉴于 Gomez-Torrente 将报告视为不冲突的细粒度，我建议放弃超细粒度的语义上下文参数，以支持更丰富的语用参数来确定协商断言的内容。接下来我质疑他关于名称和指示词使用的似是而非的单独充分但非分离必要的规则是否应该被理解为提供说话者所指而不是对包含这些术语的句子的使用的言外内容的贡献。最后，我解释了为什么我将本书的最高明珠作为第 4 章中关于自然数作为复数基数属性的说明，以及关于语言和阿拉伯语的说明，