You must be or I wouldn't know that you are referring to an imaginary being you just made up. when you use that name.

This is perfectly in accord with the conventional use of 'to refer'. Neither you nor I have violated any grammatical rules in giving a name to an imaginary being and using that name to refer to this imaginary being.

What makes you think that if I simply make up a name, and I tell you I am referring to the bearer of that name, that there is a bearer of that name who is an imaginary being? I haven't imagined anyone at all. All I did was invent a name. Why do you assume that there is a bearer of that name?

So all you did was lie to me.
If I tell you I went to a party last night where I ran into a mutal acquaintance and you asked me who and I tell you that it was Fast and then you find out later that Fast was not really there, is one to conclude that we cannot use the name 'Fast' to refer to Fast? All I did was use the name 'Fast' to tell a lie.

I guess you must think everyone is lying when they refer to an imaginary person by her name.

So all you did was lie to me.
If I tell you I went to a party last night where I ran into a mutal acquaintance and you asked me who and I tell you that it was Fast and then you find out later that Fast was not really there, is one to conclude that we cannot use the name 'Fast' to refer to Fast? All I did was use the name 'Fast' to tell a lie.

I guess you must think everyone is lying when they refer to an imaginary person by her name.

I did not lie to you. I simply asked you whether I could refer to (I forget the name). You assumed that any name must have a bearer. I am questioning that assumption. Why do you assume that every name must have a bearer?

Why do you assume that every name must have a bearer?

If Santa did exist, the term "Santa" would have a referent.

The easiest way to fill in the blank is to say "can refer."

If Santa did exist, the term "Santa" would have a referent. Notice how that at least makes sense. But, what can we make of this: If although did exist, the term "although" would have a referent. That doesn't make sense. Please, don't confuse "although" with "Although." If you name a child "Although", you'll be speaking of Although and not although, and that's just the point isn't it? There is no referent of the term "although" (nor could there ever be). Yes, there's no referent of the term "Santa" either, but at least it's epistemically possible.

I'll need to know the ramifications. First, I assume that all names are terms, but I don't assume (as you seem to) that all terms are names. Beyond that, and assuming what I wouldn't ordinarily assume, I assume the term "unicorn" is an empty name since it fails to refer, but it's also the case that I know unicorns don't exist, and because I know that, I also know "unicorn" is an empty name, but what happens when we're talking about something that I don't know exists?

The referent of 'Santa Claus' is an imaginary person. So it is false to say that if Santa existed 'Santa' would have a referent.

A: referring term
B: a term that refers

You think that A is logically equivalent to B, but you're mistaken. A is stronger than B. B implies A, but A doesn't imply B.

"a referring term" df: a term that refers.

That is a stipulative definition. That is not a lexical definition. The term "referring term" has no lexical definition, but I would accept that it has a definition--even one that isn't a stipulative definition.

And how do you account for cases of Schizophrenics who use a name to refer to some flesh and blood person whom they think really exists? They are not using the name to refer to imaginary beings. They are using the name to refer to a really existent person they only *think* exists. Does the bearer of that name, therefore, really exist? Are they lying?

That is a stipulative definition. That is not a lexical definition. The term "referring term" has no lexical definition, but I would accept that it has a definition--even one that isn't a stipulative definition.

Words don't do anything, but the language we use can sometimes make us think otherwise. For example, when we say, "words denote meaning" or "words refer to their referents" we aren't actually implying that they are doing something.

When we talk about what we are referring to, we are talking about reference, but when we talk about what words refer to, I think the topic has shifted somewhat. Words (well, some of them of course) have referents; hence, referring terms that refer have referents. Extrain thinks that I am speaking unnecessarily when I talk of referring terms that refer, for he mistakenly thinks that all referring terms refer, but I still say what I say, for it's still important to make the distinction between referring terms that successfully refer and referring terms that fail to refer, for there is a difference between non-referring terms (that don't refer) and referring terms (that don't refer). At any rate, and whether any of us agree with that or not, there is still another distinction in need of being made: 1) we can use terms to refer and 2) words refer whether we use them or not.

But, how can a word refer if we aren't using a word to refer? The same way a word can mean what it means independent of what we may mean when we use a word. Recall, the lexical meaning of a word is based NOT on our individual use of our words but instead are based on our collective use of our words. Thus, words continue to mean just what they do independent of how you may or anyone else might choose to use a word. In the same vain, we can use a word to refer to whatever we choose without regard to how it's ordinarily (and collectively used), but that doesn't mean that it doesn't refer to just what it refers to independent of our individual use.

You said, "What I reject is the common presumption by philosophers that to lack a bearer is to lack reference." I think I know why you're saying what you're saying, but I think you do so without the understanding that words refer to what they do independent of our individual use. Yes, you can use a word to refer (to, I say). But, that you use it to do so doesn't mean it does so. Yes, you may have something in mind that you are referring to, but what I think is important is what the term is collectively used to refer to just like what's important regarding the meaning of a word has to do with how a word is collectively used and not how a word is individually used.

Yes, or drunks and pink elephants.

Kenneth, have you ever seen me claim that if we refer to something that it has to exist?
I''ve claimed just the opposite: that people do correctly use words to refer to non-existent things.

What is necessary for a successful reference is for the referent to be identifiable. This is in complete accord with standard usage.

Yes, or drunks and pink elephants.