... sorry, but I also don't like this either. When I said that a bearer-call was a search for the bearer of the right N, it seems to contradict me saying that the two are never separated. Perhaps the better way to say it is that it is the REFERENCE of the bearer of N, not the assignment of it. That's the key. Replace the idea of reference for the talk of "searching"\"identifying"\"quest." There is no search here where N and bearer need mated. On the contrary, the search, if at all, is for an ALREADY-MATCHED bearer and name who are always present together. (You know, if bearers didn't become separable from their names in language, one could see Wittgenstein saying that the above was a "queer" expression -- something falsely duplicate or occultish. Talking as if "Jane" was something different from Jane does sound superfluous until you stumble upon language uses where bearers and names divorce. All that I have said here is this: where they DO NOT DIVORCE, the game is precisely that). ================================ 1. Let me give some better explanation of "bearer-calls" and "bearer-assignments." Bearer-calls are where bearers and their names are always present (together) in the language game. Here we ALWAYS want to identify some person or thing that bears the N in question. It's a person (or thing) quest. The quest can be for something real or fictional. ("This is Mordor"). But what is key is that we are searching for a person, place or thing that is called by the right N. The game is: match the bearer to the N. One wants to say this "feels" like a kind of archeology or an historicism. You look for the X that is bearing your N. ============ SW ========================================= Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/