Talk:Proper name (philosophy)

message: Why is the plural used in the title of this article? Michael Hardy 14:07, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: My main objection to the intro paragraph is the word “recalcitrant” is there. Surely there is a more easily understandable word that would be appropriate. Any objections to changing that “recalcitrant” to “difficult” or “complicated”? --EarthFurst 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: the part after the referential theory is taken from a book called'philosophy of language' by william lycan without even touching a comma. and there is no citation for it. i dont know how it works but isnt it plagiarism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.97.174.13 (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I have removed the copyright violation and I will work on rewriting it, unless someone does it before me. There are arguments that Frege was not a descriptivist, and the reference (and sense) theory was more of his idea anyway. Pomte 10:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly the section on referential theory has remained blankPhilogo (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLAGIARISM 

message: This article reads like a philosophy essay, not an encyclopedia article.  It needs to use the third person, rather than the second person and first person plural.  The title of this article does not seem appropriate to its scope; it reads like what I would think of as "proper names in philosophy".  I came here looking for a more precise definition of "proper noun" which is not given in the article noun, which the disambiguation link points to. 
The article is also very dense and confusing to the average reader.  It would benefit from a rewrite in more accessible language, being careful to explain technical terms used in philosophy.  Avoiding the passive voice would also help. -- Beland 01:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope, POV, and style 

message: Please see Talk:Proper noun#Merge? for a proposal to merge this article with a related one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposed 

message: We don't have anything about this at all yet. From what I can determine, it originates in peer-reviewed form with Sloat (Language 45: 26–30, 1969), and was developed in detail by Burge (J. Philos. 70: 425–439, 1973), with whom the theory is usually associated. It has been revisited a lot lately, e.g.: Sawyer, S. (2010), New Waves in Philosophy of Language, chapter "The Modified Predicate Theory of Proper Names", pp. 206-225. MacMillan Pr.  An article I don't have access to even through JSTOR does provide a handy bibliography in the JSTOR-available abstract; it is "On the unification argument for the predicate view on proper names", Rami, Dolf; Synthese, 191(5): 841-862 (March 2014).  In particular, "Two Theories of Names" (Segal, Gabriel; Mind & Language 16(5): 547–563 (Nov. 2001)) may be of use. It evaluates "for empirical plausibility" both "Burge's treatment of proper names as complex demonstratives and Larson & Segal's quasi-descriptivist account of names".  Our present mention of Burge in our article doesn't seem to address all of his work on this topic, and we don't mention Larson & Segal at all, suggesting at least the "Descriptive theory" section is inadequate.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOFIXIT.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If I get around to it. This is pretty far down my priority list, below working on Proper noun even. Just dropping the cites here in case someone else wants to run with them in the interim. I also don't have all of these on hand. JSTOR doesn't cough up all of them, and I'm not presently willing to spend the cash to get Sawyer's book, though it's probably interesting.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predicate theory of proper names 

message: Drinking water 202.1.186.55 (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety drinking water