But what gives people the idea of wanting to make why should one wish to regard just this word ˇas a name, when it so obviously isn't a name? –
For this very reason
Just that
; for th[y|e]y we are inclined to make an raise an objectionion to ˇcalling “ˇa name” what is generally called “name” so; and th[e|is] objection can be
expressed by saying
put in this way
: that the name really ought to
stand for
indicate
something simple
. And for this one can might give say the following reasons be defended as follows:– A proper name in the ordinary sense
is
would be
,
e.g.
for instance
, the word “Noth[i|u]ng ˇEscaliber”. The sword Nothung consistsed of ˇvarious parts put together in a
certain
particular
way. If they are not put together differently in a different this way then Nothung doesn't exist. Now the sentence “Nothung has a sharp edge” obviously has
sense
meaning
, 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 then ha[v|s]e any no object corresponding to it then, it wouldn't have hasn't any meaning. But then in the sentence, “Nothung has a sha[p|r]p edge”, there
is
would be
a word
without a
that has no
meaning, and so ˇtherefore
“Nothung has a sharp edge”
the sentence
would be
28
would be nonsense. But ˇto say th[e|is] sentence does have meaning, and so ˇto the words of which it consists must alwaysch correspond to something.
Therefore
So that
in
an
the
analysis of the meaning ˇsense ◇◇◇ the word “Nothung” must disappear, and
instead of it
in its place
must come words ˇmust appear that name which stand for ˇdenote something simpleˇ objects. And [t|T]hese words we may reasonably call the real names.