Walter Okshevsky wrote:
"I would think that without some name, we would not be able to mark the
conceptual differentiations necessary for the identification and
understanding of any single concept."
Eric Yost replies, describing the concept of a pawn in chess and then
concludes:
"...one could still learn this concept of 'pawn' without having the name
'pawn'."
The marked names in the above quote from Eric mean different things so I
am not entirely clear as to the point Eric is making. Certainly there
is no reason why the letters p,a,w,n combined in that order to form a
name need be the name of the concept identified with the name 'pawn'.
In fact, it seems perfectly reasonable to think that the piece in chess
with the name 'pawn' might have different names in different languages.
It seems to me, and here I don't want to presume on Walter's own
response, that Walter has something different in mind.
