R. Paul: "Wittgenstein says, §410, '"I" doesn't name a person, nor "here" a place, and "this" is not a name, but they are connected with names...'" In a message dated 6/26/2012 4:00:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: Unfortunately Robert's quotation is not given any commentary so that we might be enlightened as to whether W means more than merely the following: 'I' does not name a person: hence we do not say 'My name is I' etc. 'I' may refer to a person: e.g. 'I am a person not a machine, Mr. Turing'. If something more profound or interesting is afoot we should perhaps be told. In particular, if W is denying that 'I' may refer to a person just as 'there' may refer to a place (on the face of it W doesn't deny they may so refer). Thus the Crow did not 'name the killer' so much as admit he was the killer by referring to the killer as 'I'. ----- Mmm. It seems obvious that Witters is trying to make, er, again, a general point, by mixing (a mixed bag): "I", "here" and "this". I think 'name' can be used vaguely enough so that "this" (Russell's favourite name for a sense-datum) becomes a name. I did it in God's name -- sounds like a common phrase. Hence my "In Grice's name". If I do something "in God's name" I don't necessarily need to know the _ name_ of God (although I may implicate that I do know it). Now that while a "pro-noun" (like "I" or "me" for that matter) stands for a "noun", like "soldier", it shares some nominal features with 'nouns' (names -- either 'proper' or 'common'). Note that if Witters meant: "Pronouns are not nouns" he should have said it. --- And so on. Cheers, Speranza ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html