 more general and important issue, namely the ontological status of possibilities (possible worlds or situations), without which the semantics of conditionals, modals, and perhaps attitude reports seems hardly possible. In natural language semantics, it is common to posit possible worlds as parameters of evaluation, for the purpose of the semantics of modals, conditionals, and attitude reports. As parameters of evaluation, possible worlds are often considered'mere posits' by the theorists, not involving an ontological commitment on the part of the language use. There are also good grounds, however, for attributing parameters of evaluation the same cognitive status as referents of referential NPs since a grasp of entities acting as parameters should be part of knowing the truth conditions of sentences and the meaning of relevant constructions. It is then expected that there should be explicit, non-technical terms for such entities in at least some languages. It appears that at least in English there aren't any terms in the core (non-technical part) of language that stand for entire worlds.51 Case-constructions clearly belong to the core (non-technical part) of language, and they indicate that what is involved in the semantics of conditionals, attitude reports, and epistemic modals are not worlds, but situations, and that in their role as truthmakers. Acknowledgements The paper has benefitted from the audiences at presentations of material of this paper at the Conference Truth Makers and Proof Objects, organized by P. Martin-Loef, École Normale Supérieure, Paris (2011), Kit Fine's seminar Truthmaker Semantics at NYU (2012), the City University of Hong Kong (2012), the University of Göttingen (2012), the University of Chicago (2012), the workshop Truth, Existence and Fundamentality, organized by T. Sattig and A. Torza, Tübingen (2013), the University of Padua (2013), the Symposium on Truthmaking, organized by M. Traynor, Arché, St Andrews (2014), the University of Düsseldorf (2018), the New York Philosophy of Language Workshop at 51 Of course, there is the term possible world, used by theorists to refer to entire possible worlds. However, even though a legitimate part of English, possible world is a 'technical' term in the (ontological) periphery, not the core of language. See Moltmann (to appear a) for the core-periphery distinction relevant for natural language ontology.
more general and important issue, namely the ontological status of hypothesis (potential worlds or situations), without which the semantics of conditionals, modal auxiliary verb, and perhaps position reports seems barely possible. In natural language semantics, it is coarse to posit possible earth as parameters of evaluation, for the purpose of the semantics of modal auxiliary verb, conditionals, and attitude reports. As parameters of evaluation, possible worlds are often considered'mere posits' by the theorist, not involving an ontological commitment on the part of the lyric use. There are besides good flat coat, however, for attributing parameter of evaluation the same cognitive status as referents of referential neptunium since a grasp of entities acting as parameters should be part of knowing the truth conditions of sentences and the meaning of relevant constructions. It is then expected that there should be explicit, non - technical terms for such entities in at least some languages. It appears that at least in English there aren't any terminus in the core (non - technical part) of terminology that digest for entire worlds.51 Case - constructions intelligibly belong to the core (non - technical part) of language, and they bespeak that what is involved in the semantics of conditionals, attitude reports, and epistemic modals are not worlds, but situations, and that in their character as truthmakers. Acknowledgements The paper has benefitted from the audiences at presentation of material of this composition at the Conference Truth Makers and Proof Objects, organized by P. Martin - Loef, École Normale Supérieure, Paris (2011), Kit Fine's seminar Truthmaker Semantics at NYU (2012), the City University of Hong Kong (2012), the University of Göttingen (2012), the University of Chicago (2012), the workshop Truth, Existence and Fundamentality, organized by T. Sattig and A. Torza, Tübingen (2013), the University of Padua (2013), the Symposium on Truthmaking, organized by M. Traynor, Arché, St Andrews (2014), the University of Düsseldorf (2018), the New York Philosophy of Language Workshop at 51 Of course, there is the condition possible world, used by theorist to refer to integral possible worlds. However, even though a legitimate part of English, possible earth is a' technical' term in the (ontological) periphery, not the core of speech. See Moltmann (to look a) for the core - periphery distinction relevant for natural language ontology.
 moge general and important issue, namely tkw ontonogicam status of possibilities (possible wlrods oe situations), without wfich the demanticw of xonditionals, modals, and lcrhapv attitude repotts seems hasdly possible. Hn nctural language semantics, it is commjn to ppslt possible wotlds sf padameters of evaluation, for the purlose of the semanticx of modals, conditionals, ajd ahtitude reports. As parameters of qcaluation, porsible worlds are ofteh considered'mere posits' by the gheornsts, not incoovijc an ontolojical bommitment on the pard of thr language use. Thxre qre also good grounds, however, for attrifuting pasajeters of evaluatuob the sama coebitkve svaths as gefxrents of rsferential BPs since a grasp og qbtities actinf as pwrwmeters should be part of knowing the tguth conditions of sentencew and the meaning of televant cjnstructions. It is then expected that there shoulg be xxolielb, nov-refhnical terms for such entities in at least sjje lsnguages. It apiears that at leasy ln Gnglish there xren't chy terms in the core (non-tecrnicao part) of lanbuage that stand for entire worlds.51 Case-bonsrructions clearly yelong to thz core (non-trchnical part) of languaye, and they indicwte that sfat is involved kn nhe vemantics of conditionals, wttitude ceporcs, and eoistgmic moqals are nlt wovnds, but situations, and jhat it their rope as truthmakers. Acknowledgemeivs The paper nav bvnefitted from the audiencef at presentatnons of iaterkal of thia paper at the Conserence Truth Lakers and Pcoof Objests, irgabized bh P. Martin-Loef, Évole Normcje Sypérieure, Paris (2011), Kib Fing's seminar Truthmcytr Semantics at MYU (2012), tre Cmty Ughversity of Vong Kovb (2012), thd Universitn ow Götyingen (2012), the Universidy or Chicago (2012), the worlsmop Truth, Existense and Fundamrntality, organized by T. Savtig amd W. Torza, Tübingen (2013), the Universitg of Paduw (2013), bhe Symposium on Brutrmaking, oryanized by M. Traynor, Arché, St Andrews (2014), thx University of Düsseldoef (2018), the New York Phnlpsophy of Lenguagq Worksho[ at 51 Of course, therw is the term posxible world, used by tgeorisds to refer to entire possible worlds. However, even though a legitimate part of English, possible sorlc is d 'cecknical' eerm mn the (ontologicak) periphery, not the core of lanjuage. See Kojtmann (to appear a) for the cprd-periphery dirtinction relevant for nztural lsnguage ontology.
more general and important issue, namely the of (possible worlds situations), without which and attitude reports seems possible. In natural semantics, it is common to posit worlds as parameters of evaluation, for the purpose of the semantics of modals, and attitude reports. As parameters of evaluation, possible worlds are often considered'mere posits' the not an commitment on the part of the language use. There are also good grounds, however, for attributing of evaluation the same cognitive status as referents referential NPs since a of entities acting as parameters be of knowing truth of and the meaning relevant constructions. It is then expected that there should be explicit, non-technical terms for such entities in least some appears that least English aren't any terms core (non-technical part) of language that worlds.51 Case-constructions clearly belong to the core (non-technical of language, they indicate that what is involved the semantics of conditionals, attitude reports, and epistemic are not worlds, but situations, and that in their role as truthmakers. Acknowledgements The paper from the audiences at of material of paper the Truth and Proof organized by P. Martin-Loef, École Normale Supérieure, Paris (2011), Kit Fine's Truthmaker Semantics at NYU (2012), the City University of Hong the of Göttingen (2012), University of Chicago (2012), workshop Existence and Fundamentality, organized Sattig A. the of (2013), the Symposium on organized by M. Traynor, Arché, Andrews (2014), the University York Philosophy of Language Workshop at 51 Of there is the term possible world, used theorists to refer to entire possible worlds. However, even though a legitimate of English, is a 'technical' term in the (ontological) periphery, the core of language. Moltmann (to appear a) for the core-periphery distinction relevant natural ontology.
 more general and important isSue, namely tHe ontOloGicAl StatUs of Possibilities (pOSsibLe worlds or situations), wiThout WhICh thE SeMantiCs of conDItIONalS, mOdAls, AnD PeRhaps AttItude rePorts seems HarDlY possible. In nATuRal languagE seMantics, it is cOmmOn to poSiT poSSible WorLds as ParameTErs of eValuation, FoR The purPOse of thE SEmAntiCs of modals, conditiONaLS, and attitude rePorts. AS pARaMETerS of Evaluation, PoSsiblE Worlds aRE oFTEN coNSidered'mere poSits' by the thEOriSts, not InVolVIng an oNtoloGiCAl cOmmitment on The pArt of the lAnguagE Use. TherE Are also Good grOunDs, hOwevER, fOr AttRiBUtiNG pAraMEteRs of evalUaTiOn the Same COGNItivE stAtus As refErents of referEntIal NpS siNce a gRasp oF entItIes acTing as ParamEtErs should be part Of knOwing the tRutH cOndItIons oF SentenCes And The meanIng of reLEvaNt CONStRuctions. It is then exPeCTEd That therE shoulD Be ExPLicit, non-TeChnIcal TERms foR sucH EnTities in At leasT SoMe LanguagEs. it appeArS thAt aT leasT In EnGlish tHere aren'T any tERms in the core (noN-Technical part) OF lANGuAGe thAt sTand for entiRe woRLds.51 CAse-cONsTruCTions ClearLy BElONg to the core (non-technIcAl part) Of lanGuage, and they iNdicate thaT WHAt is invoLved IN tHE semantics of coNditiOnals, attitUDe reportS, and ePistemic Modals are NOT worlds, bUt sItuAtiOns, AND tHat in their rolE AS truThMakers. ACknOwledgeMenTs THe pApeR hAs benefitTed from tHe AuDiEnCes At preSEntationS oF maTeRiaL of thIS paper At the confErEnCE TrUth MakeRS aND prooF OBjEcts, OrgAnIzed bY P. MaRTin-loef, ÉcoLe Normale supÉRieuRe, paRis (2011), Kit FIne's seminar TrUtHmaker SemaNtIcs At NYU (2012), tHE city UnivErsity of Hong Kong (2012), the UnivERsity of götTingeN (2012), the universitY of chicagO (2012), thE WorkshOp TrutH, ExisTeNce AND FundAMEnTalItY, organized BY t. SaTtig aNd a. TorZa, TübinGen (2013), the University of pAduA (2013), the Symposium On TRuthMAKiNg, oRGaNIzeD bY m. TrAYNor, Arché, St AndreWs (2014), the UniveRsITy Of DüsseldoRF (2018), thE NEw York PHilosopHy of LANguage WOrkshop at 51 of course, tHeRe is THE teRm possible World, useD by theoriSTs to rEFeR to enTirE possiBlE woRlds. HOwever, EVen ThougH a legiTiMate paRt of ENgLish, possIble world is a 'technical' teRm in thE (ontoLogIcal) peripHerY, Not The core of LangUage. See MolTmaNn (tO appeAr a) FOr the Core-PErIphERy disTincTIon relevaNT fOr nATUrAl language oNTOLogY.
 more general and importan t issue, n amely  th e o nt olog ical  status of pos s ibil ities (possible worlds  or s it u atio n s) , wit hout wh i ch t hese ma nti cs of  cond iti onals,modals, an d p er haps attitud e  r eports see mshardly possi ble . In n at ura l  lang uag e sem antics ,  it is  common t op osit p o ssiblew o rl ds a s parameters of e v al u ation, for the  purpo se of t hesem antics ofmo dals, conditi o na l s ,  an d  attitude rep orts. As pa r ame ters o feva l uation , pos si b leworlds areofte n conside red'me r e posit s ' by th e theo ris ts,  not in vo lvi ng ano nt olo g ica l commit me nt  on t he p a r t of t helang uageuse. There ar e a lsog ood  grou nds,howe ve r, fo r attr ibuti ng  parameters ofeval uation th e s am e c og nitiv e  statu s a s r eferent s of re f ere nt i a l  N Ps since a grasp o fe n ti ties act ing as pa ra m eters sh ou ldbe p a r t ofknow i ng  the tru th con d it io ns of s en tences  a ndthe  mean i ng o f rele vant con struc t ions. It is th e n expected th a tt h er e  sho uld  be explici t, n o n-te chni c al  te r ms fo r suc he nt i ties in at least so me  langu ages.  It appears t hat at lea s t in Engli sh t h er e  aren't any te rms i n the core (non-tec hnica l part)of langua g e  that st and  fo r e nti r e  w orlds.51 Case - c onst ru ctionscle arly be lon g t o t heco re (non-t echnical  p ar t)  o f l angua g e, and t he y i nd ica te th a t what  is i nvol ve di n t he sema n ti c s  ofco nd itio nal s,  atti tude rep orts, a nd episte mic moda ls  a re notworlds, but s it uations, a nd  th at int h eir role  as truthmakers. Acknow l edgemen tsThe p aper  has bene fit ted fr omt he aud iences  at p re sen t a tions o fmat er ial of thi s pap er at  t he C onferen ce Truth Makers an d  Pr oof Objects,org aniz e d  b y P .  M a rti n- L oef , École Normale S upérieure,  P a ri s (2011),K itFi ne's se minar T ruthm a ker Sem antics at  NYU (201 2) , th e Cit y Universi ty of Ho ng Kong ( 2 012), th e Uni ver sity o fGöt tinge n (201 2 ),the U nivers it y of C hicag o(2012),the workshop Truth, Exi stence  andFun damentali ty, org anized by  T.Sattig and  A.  To rza,Tüb i ngen(201 3 ),  th e  Univ ersi t y of Padu a  ( 201 3 ) ,the Symposi u m onTruth mak i ng, or gani zed by M. Traynor ,  Arché, St And rews ( 201 4), theUn iversity of Dü sse ld o r f (2018) ,the New Yor k Philos op h y ofLangua ge Wor kshop a t 51 Of cou rse,  th ere is th e t er m  possib le  w o rld, u sedby  theor ists t o  ref e r  to entire possi ble w o r lds.H owe ver,ev en thou g h alegitimate  part of En glish,  pos sible  worldis  a 'te chn ic al' term i n  the (ont ologi cal) pe ri pher y,not th e co r e  of l angu ag e.See Moltm a n n( to  a p pea r a)  forth e co re-periph e ry disti nct i on rele va ntf o r natu r al l anguage on tol ogy.
 more_general and_important issue, namely the_ontological status_of_possibilities (possible_worlds_or situations), without_which the semantics_of conditionals, modals, and_perhaps attitude reports_seems_hardly possible. In natural language semantics, it is common to posit possible worlds as_parameters_of evaluation,_for_the_purpose of the semantics of_modals, conditionals, and attitude reports._As parameters_of evaluation, possible worlds are often considered'mere posits'_by_the theorists, not_involving an ontological commitment on the part of the_language use. There are also good_grounds, however, for_attributing_parameters_of evaluation the same_cognitive status as referents of referential_NPs since a grasp of entities_acting as parameters should be part of_knowing the truth conditions of sentences_and the meaning of relevant_constructions. It_is then expected that there_should be explicit,_non-technical terms_for such entities_in at least some languages. It_appears that at_least in English there aren't any_terms_in the core_(non-technical_part)_of language_that stand for_entire_worlds.51 Case-constructions_clearly_belong to the core (non-technical part)_of_language, and they indicate that what is_involved in the semantics_of_conditionals, attitude reports, and_epistemic modals are not worlds,_but situations, and that in their_role as_truthmakers. Acknowledgements_The paper has benefitted from the audiences at presentations of material_of this paper at the Conference_Truth Makers and Proof_Objects, organized_by_P. Martin-Loef, École_Normale_Supérieure, Paris_(2011), Kit Fine's seminar Truthmaker Semantics at_NYU (2012),_the City University of Hong Kong_(2012), the University of_Göttingen_(2012), the University of Chicago (2012),_the workshop Truth, Existence and Fundamentality,_organized by T. Sattig and_A._Torza,_Tübingen (2013), the University of_Padua (2013), the Symposium on Truthmaking,_organized by M._Traynor, Arché, St Andrews (2014), the University_of_Düsseldorf (2018), the New York Philosophy_of_Language Workshop at 51 Of course,_there_is_the term possible world, used_by theorists to refer to entire_possible worlds. However, even though a legitimate part of_English, possible world_is a 'technical' term in_the_(ontological)_periphery, not the core of language. See Moltmann (to appear_a) for_the core-periphery distinction_relevant for natural language ontology.