If I say that "cat" is a referring word, then I'm using "referring" as an action verb. There is no technical term called "referring word," so I have no choice but to treat the term "referring word" much like you treat the term "referring term."

Although there is no technical term called "referring word," there is a technical term called "referring term." Whether or not we treat the word "referring" as an action verb has everything to with whether or not we intend to use a technical term (or merely a term) when we say "referring term."

Furthermore, if you do not use the term "referring term" as a technical term, then you are using "referring" as an action verb, but when I use the term "referring term" as a technical term, I am not (nor should I be) using the term "referring" as an action verb.

If you continue to use the term "referring term" as you do, then I fully expect you to think that the meaning of "referring term" hinges on the lexical meanings of each word inclusive of the term, but because I have not been using the term as merely a term but instead as a technical term, you ought not expect that I glean the meaning of the technical term by what the lexical meanings of the inclusive words are.

Santa is an imaginary person. Of course, Santa doesn't have a real hand that I can shake. That doesn't prohibit me from referring to him.
Using an imaginary person's name to refer to her is not like shaking her hand.
I cannot successfully use 'Santa Claus' to refer to a real person unless a real person has been given that name.

Imaginary people don't exist; if what we're talking about doesn't exist, then whatever term we're using to talk about that something that doesn't exist doesn't have a referent.

This is so stupid. Everything you just said applies to you too.

For the last time, why is a term that is not referring a referrring term???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Because if there were an object for it to refer to, then it would refer to that object? The point is to distinguish between a word like, "mermaid" and a word like, "if". In the Middle Ages much the same distinction was made between categorimatic and syncategorimatic terms.

The scholastics of the high medieval period, such as Occam and John Duns Scotus, considered logic to be a scientia sermocinalis (science of language). The result of their studies was the elaboration of linguistic-philosophical notions whose complexity and subtlety has only recently come to be appreciated. Many of the most interesting problems of modern philosophy of language were anticipated by medieval thinkers. The phenomena of vagueness and ambiguity were analyzed intensely, and this led to an increasing interest in problems related to the use of syncategorematic words such as and, or, not, if, and every. The study of categorematic words (or terms) and their properties was also developed greatly.[7]

Wiki.

That doesn't answer the question!!!!!!

Why is a term that is not referring (ACTION VERB) not a referring term??

WHAT ARE YOUR N/S CONDITIONS?

IT'S A SIMPLE QUESTION, SO SIMPLE THAT YOU GUYS CAN'T ANSWER IT.

I did not say that "to run" (for example) is not a referring term. It is certainly not a noun or a noun phrase which are cited as referring terms, and they are typical referring terms. But I don't see any a priori reason for action terms not to be referring terms. Maybe there is, though.

Imaginary people don't exist; if what we're talking about doesn't exist, then whatever term we're using to talk about that something that doesn't exist doesn't have a referent.

I agree. Now answer the question:

Why is a term that is not actually referring (ACTION VERB) a referring (adjective) term??

__________"

IF YOU CAN'T ANSWER THIS QUESTION, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE A THEORY OF REFERENCE.

AHAB DOES. And I can tell you what his theory of reference is, too, even though I disagree with it!

A term is a referring term if it does refer (sufficient condition) and it is not a referring term unless it is possible for it to refer (necessary condition).

A term is a referring term if it does refer (sufficient condition) and it is not a referring term unless it is possible for it to refer (necessary condition).

You have a problem then.

If a name has been given to an imaginary person, it is only possible for that name to be used to refer to said imaginary person if it is possible to refer to non-existent things like imaginary persons. You have so far refused to acknowledge that possibility.

Again, what is the necessary condition condition for a term to refer?

Yes. The answer is that names do not refer to imaginary persons for there are no imaginary persons. So say that X is imaginary is to that that X does not exist.

So "Santa Claus" is not a referring term.

That there be something for it to refer to.

Yes, I know. You're the one that's not.

You continue to ask this question even though it could imply a falsehood, and because you don't see that, I try to help you by explaining to you what's going on. You ask, "why is a term that is not referring a referring term?," but it's not always the case that a term that is not referring is a referring term......

Extrain, the supposed referent is a real live person (Santa). The term "Santa" is being used as if it refers, and based on that (and that alone), I conclude that "Santa" is a referring term, but I do not therefore conclude that it's a referring term that successfully refers. The referent of the referring term needs to exist before I'd commit to saying that the referring term successfully refers.

This Santa example is a case where the term "Santa" is being used as if it's referring, but because we know it doesn't refer, and because it's being used as if it refers, it is not a non-referring term that doesn't refer but instead a referring term that doesn't refer.

Can you please have another look at my posts #836 and 839.

A parade of fighting men is not a parade of men who are (currently) fighting. And a washing machine is not necessarily a machine that is (currently) washing; it is still correctly called by that name even when turned off or broken. "Washing" here is a gerund describing the machine's structure and function (= a machine for washing), not a present participle stating what it is currently doing (= a machine that is washing). The same applies to "flying squirrel" which mysteriously appeared in posts #886-902; such an animal does not cease to be a "flying squirrel" when it stops flying.

My point is that, in English, an "X-ing Y" does not always mean a "Y that is currently X-ing". Whether it does so in any particular case depends on the context.

Now, if "word or set of words that are referring" is the established meaning of "referring term" in the philosophy of language, that's fine; let's stick to that. But I think it would then be useful to have an expression to describe the class of words or sets of words that purport (truly or falsely) to refer (e.g. Dick Cheney, Santa Claus, horse, unicorn), as opposed to those that do not purport to refer at all (e.g. although, abc, @^~).

Why would you say that? It is possible for Santa to exist, and so, "Santa" is a referring term.

So he is commtted to holding that there is no such thing as a referring term that does not refer. Case closed.