We would be marked down in my old German class if we wrote heissen as "meaning" instead of being explicit with be right word bedeutend. Heissen can be used informally as "meaning" but it's the nearly equivalent to naming whereas bedeuten = to mean; bedeutend, I think, in this case.
Why would W choose a casual expression when he could easily choose an exact one? Maybe he did use an exact word' if so, then he asked, What is this named? I was not a top student of German but I was good enough to get the "high pass" (the best possible grade) in the notoriously difficult Univ. Chicago graduate reading exam in German. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 5:02:16 PM Subject: Re: Validity of Cheerskep's Argument On Aug 1, 2010, at 5:47 PM, [email protected] wrote: > There is indeed. It is broader than what is that called or named. You are > just as likely to get an explanation of what the thing is used for as you are > to find out what to call it. When trying to learn something very > simple,like how to say spoon using German,it is disconcerting to have someone > dmonstrate how to use a spoon. "Namen" works better. Presumably this difference is > what Wittgenstein intended to be understood? You mean, it's ... um ... what's that f-word? Oh yes, it's fuzzy! What a notion! | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady
