Why should it not be the whole function of a word to denote many things? - John Langshaw Austin

In one sense "there are" both universals and material objects, in another sense there is no such thing as either: statements about each can usually be analysed, but not always, nor always without remainder.

It may justly be urged that, properly speaking, what alone has meaning is a sentence.

If we say that I only get at the symptoms of his anger, that carries an important implication. But is this the way we do talk?