Return-Path: Return-Path: Date: Thu Jun 13 12:56:31 1991 From: Guy Steele Message-Id: <9106131521.AA19108@strident.think.com> To: cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com!lojbab Cc: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com In-Reply-To: Bob LeChevalier's message of Thu, 13 Jun 91 02:02 EDT Subject: Guy Steele on names as predicates Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Thu Jun 13 12:56:31 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!Think.COM!gls Date: Thu, 13 Jun 91 02:02 EDT From: cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com!lojbab@uunet.UU.NET (Bob LeChevalier) But the real point of names as opposed to other words is that names are more overtly symbols than other words. We don;t ascribe any real semantics to "Mick Jagger" - it just labels an individual. On the other hand, we try to "keep up with the Joneses", and there are no individuals that we have in mind when we use that idiom. But I don't see why "cat" or "throw" has semantics that are more real than those inherent in "Mick Jagger". Most of the time, though, names are a conventional label for one or more individuals, and there is nothing about that name that makes it especially apprpriate or inappropriate, except in the mind of the namer. But there is nothing about the word "star" that makes it especially appropriate or inappropriate to describe those little twinkling lights in the sky. With the exception of onomatopoeia, all words are merely conventional labels for the concepts with which they are associated in our minds, individually and collectively. --Guy