But
what gives people the idea of wanting to make
just this word || why should one wish to regard just this word
as a name, when it so obviously
isn't a
name? –
Just that || For this very
reason; for
they || we are
inclined to
make an
objection || object || raise an objection to
what is generally called
“name” || calling “a name” what is
generally called so; and
the || this
objection can be
put in this way || expressed by
saying:
that the name really ought to
indicate || stand for something
simple.
And
for this one might give the following
reasons || this can be defended as follows:–
A proper name in the ordinary sense
would
be || is,
for
instance || e.g.,
the word
“
Nothung || Excalibur”.
The sword Nothung
consists || consisted
of
various parts put together in a
particular || certain way.
If they are
put
together differently || in a different way || not put
together in this way then Nothung
doesn't exist.
Now the sentence “Nothung has a sharp
edge” obviously has
meaning || sense,
whether Nothung is still whole or has been smashed
to
bits.
Yet if “Nothung” is the name of an
object, then this object doesn't exist any more when
Nothung has been smashed; and since the name
wouldn't have any object
corresponding to it then, it wouldn't have || then has no
object corresponding to it, it hasn't any
meaning.
But then in the sentence, “Nothung has a
sha
rp edge”, there
would
be || is a word
that has
no || without a meaning, and
so || therefore the
sentence || “Nothung has a sharp
edge” would be
28
¤ nonsense.
But
the sentence || to say this
does have meaning, and so
the words of which it consists must
always correspond to something || to the words of which it consists
something must always correspond.
So
that || Therefore in
the || an analysis of the
meaning || sense
◇◇◇ the word “Nothung”
must disappear
, and
in its
place || instead of it must come words || words must
appear that name || which
stand for || denote
something simple || simple
objects.
And
these || These words we may reasonably call
the real names.