One widespread assumption about the things called "propositions" is that they are entities that enjoy certain properties. Another widespread assumption about the things called "propositions " is that the evidence for them comes from ordinary language. The aim of the first part of the paper is to show that these two assumptions can't be both right. Ordinary language does not provide evidence for the claim that there are entities with the properties typically assigned to the things called "propositions". Therefore, in order for that claim to be justified there must be arguments in support of those entities which do not rely on ordinary language alone. The aim of the second part of the paper is to show that no such argument is available. This leads to the conclusion that we have no reason to think that there are entities with the properties in question.