ABSTRACT
This chapter shows that all the linguistic/psychological data supporting singular thoughts and sentences don’t differ with respect to empty and nonempty singularity. It illustrates how families of arguments and thought experiments already present in the literature for singularity have easy extensions to empty cases. The chapter discusses, exposing the assumptions, that prima facie bear against the very possibility of empty singularity. One assumption about the metaphysics of propositions or thoughts is that there are only two choices, Russellianism and Fregeanism. Cognitive/epistemic broadenings of acquaintance must be sharply distinguished from metaphysical broadenings. Semantic hypocrisy is the view that the logical devices in a metalanguage housing the semantics of an object language must differ in their ontological commitments from those in the object language that the semantics target.
