In this paper, I defend a non-descriptivist and non-psychological account regarding the meaning of propositional attitude verbs versus the standard theory of propositional attitudes (and attitude-attributing sentences). My purpose is to avoid some problematic consequences associated with the standard theory, such as a) the postulation of intentional objects; b) the assumption that subject to whom a particular mental state is attributed, using a propositional attitude verb, stands in a first-order relation to such intentional objects; c) the assumption that propositional attitude sentences are used to describe such a relation. My defence will take advantage of classical texts by Wittgenstein, Ryle, and Urmson and will be bolstered, prior cha...