Before moving on to Dummett's ideas on tone, I think we might here be able to deal with a few of Frege's examples in fairly short order. If someone asks after the difference in meaning between "Scott wrote Waverley" and "Waverley was written by Scott", an otherwise competent English speaker might be hard pressed for an answer. Possibly, as Katz maintains, the two sentences are perfectly synonymous (1968: 473). Frege, however, claims that they aren't identical in every respect: he says that in different contexts one can be decidedly preferable. The choice is "of no concern to logic", he says, "although in actual speech, it can certainly be very important where the attention is directed and where the stress falls' (1897: 242).¹ Perhaps this reveals no more than a dissociation of use and meaning. But I think it is better seen as a way of distinguishing conversational conventions from meaning-determining conditions. That a speaker employs the active form to direct attention to, or place greater weight on, the subject relates, I should say, rather to her purpose, or point. The active version is more fitting in conversational contexts where what is at issue is just who Scott is, or what things Scott did. Similarly, when "things written by Scott" is the concern, the passive version is appropriate. This is not an empty stylistic predilection. It is not something that can be subsumed under Dummett's semantic formulations, "manner of speaking" or 'style of discourse".