ABSTRACT
Since tokens and denoted things are assumed by any semantic scheme, inscriptionalism does not add to the entities commonly recognized; its interpretations are therefore ontologically acceptable to non-inscriptionalists, although the converse does not hold. Readers who do not share the inscriptionalistic assumptions of the present inquiry may therefore still find interest in its interpretations. They need not take its exclusions in any absolute sense, but only understand them hypothetically, as defining the methodological constraints of the study. They may, moreover, be assured that notions excluded by these constraints may be reintroduced at will by anyone who does not find them obscure.
