after spending some time with that last post, i kinda want to delete it. it's pretty silly to assert that words are names of concepts and things, or at least that they exclusively name. the current wiki page on names suggests pretty broad usage, saying that they "can identify a class or category of things, or a single thing, either uniquely, or within a given context." i think my temptation to overextend 'name' could be blamed on a weird fascination with ostensive definitions, which rarely come up but in trying to communicate with children or foreigners (oh, and the private language argument, :P). ostensive definitions are employed after a word's use has already been established, while the idea that words are names has to do with the original dubbing process of a new thing or concept.
now that i've been marinating on it for a while, maybe it's not so silly to think that words largely function as names. in so far as words have sense and reference, they're names for what's referred to. do words like 'ouch' or 'hooray' refer to anything? they report sense data, but at best inelegantly refer. more interestingly, according to emotivism, the whole body of language about ethics has no reference!
my brain is falling apart thanks to the stress of my living situation. i'm going to use this present breakdown of focus as an excuse to drink heavily and play pinball.
No comments:
Post a Comment