{"id":8083,"date":"2016-02-01T22:55:11","date_gmt":"2016-02-02T06:55:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/?p=8083"},"modified":"2016-02-07T04:38:13","modified_gmt":"2016-02-07T12:38:13","slug":"common-sense-about-names-and-about-descriptions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/?p=8083","title":{"rendered":"Common Sense about Names and about Descriptions"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The entry in <cite>Sibley's Birds<\/cite> for <span style=\"font-style: italic ;\">Common Raven<\/span> begins <q>Uncommon.<\/q><\/p> <p>This case illustrates the important distinction between <span style=\"font-style: italic ;\">names<\/span> and <span style=\"font-style: italic ;\">descriptions<\/span>. <q>Common raven<\/q> is a <span style=\"font-style: italic ;\">name<\/span>; it was surely intended to be a name that worked as a description, but it presently fails as the latter while continuing to be the former.<\/p> <p>A <span style=\"font-style: italic ;\">description<\/span> can be usefully <em>analyzed<\/em>.  It has components, each of which has independent meaning, and considering those meanings allows one better to understand the thing described.<\/p> <p>A <span style=\"font-style: italic ;\">name<\/span> as such is not analyzed; sometimes it might usefully be analyzed; sometimes it cannot be analyzed; sometimes analysis is misleading (as in <q>common raven<\/q>).<\/p> <p>Often, what we call <q>description<\/q> is no more than <em>naming<\/em>.  For example, if someone points to something and asks <q>What is that?<\/q>, and I say <q>an urn<\/q>, then all that I have <em>really<\/em> done is to provide a <em>name<\/em>, perhaps trusting the other person to know what <q>urn<\/q> means.  On the other hand, if I say <q>an <u>ancient<\/u> urn<\/q> or <q>a <u>ceramic<\/u> urn<\/q> or <q>an <u>empty<\/u> urn<\/q>, then I have <em>described<\/em> it (though surely not as thoroughly as it might be described).<\/p> <p>Notice that all description is constructed of names.  The audience might subsequently ask for descriptions corresponding to names used, but eventually one reaches a point at which the names are of things that cannot be described (though alternative names might be offered).<\/p> <p>Occasionally, I read something mocking someone for not understanding a description, such that a more perspicacious observer would recognize that the someone being mocked was treating the description as a name.  This error may be no more foolish than wondering whether the <span style=\"font-style: italic ;\">common raven<\/span> is a common bird.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The entry in Sibley's Birds for Common Raven begins Uncommon. This case illustrates the important distinction between names and descriptions. Common raven is a name; it was surely intended to be a name that worked as a description, but it presently fails as the latter while continuing to be the former. A description can be [&hellip;]","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,117,720,4],"tags":[947,1380,1379],"class_list":["post-8083","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary","category-communication","category-epistemology","category-public","tag-definitions","tag-descriptions","tag-names"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8083","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8083"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8083\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8083"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8083"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8083"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}