I think you are assuming a great deal about the community that you have no evidence for. The cmmunity as described by W is very small,the builder and his assistant. I think that to extend community to include a number of people who are not discussed by W and whose presence in the problem is introduced by you is a bad argument. Kate Sullivan In a message dated 8/4/10 11:02:25 AM, [email protected] writes:
> On to Kate's observation that in the specific instance of when the > builder > says, "Slab!" to his assistant, it is a cue for a "defined action". The > "action" is quite specific: the assistant is to pick up a slab and bring > it to > the builder. I claim LW's assertion that "THE meaning of a word" is "its > use > in the community" is, one, unpersuasive, two, an arbitrary stipulation, > and, > three, an instance of fuzzy reification of an unnecessary entity. > > Unpersuasive: The builder used 'slab' in his community. Therefore, acc > ording to LW, that "use" is "THE meaning of 'slab' in the builder's > community." I > reject the implication that "pick up a slab and bring it to me" is "THE > meaning of" 'slab' whenever "slab" is uttered in the builder's community. > E.g. > this might be a community conversation: "Harry was hurt when part of the > building fell on him." "Oh? What part - a pillar or a slab?" "Slab.") I.e. > LW's > phrasing suggests a uniformity of intent in all members of the community, > and that's obviously not the case. There is no single "its" use.
