linguistic reference is only demonstrable within a language-game.

Wittgenstein made the therapeutic suggestion to include percepts and actions in the definition of "language", because concepts such as linguistic reference can only be made sense of within the broader concept of a language-game. Whereas if "Language" is used to only refer to the verbal part of the language-game, your philosophical puzzlement arises.

I point to the subject-predicate of ''Jesus'' and ''is Jew''. One of the statements is true and the other false. — TheMadFool

How do you point to the predicate "...is a jew"?

I think we're not on the same page. What exactly do you mean by "refer"?

Isn't language symbolic in that we words and everything we can do with it is the act of a symbol or string of symbols pointing or referring to something else?

Subject-predicate statements point to both what is the subject and the predicate and the relationship between them. Am I wrong?

Also, how does one judge truth?

First meaning of a propsition must be be understood and only then can we evaluate truth.

To understand meaning the process of referring must be completed right?

Isn't language symbolic in that we words and everything we can do with it is the act of a symbol or string of symbols pointing or referring to something else? — TheMadFool

No. Not all words are names.

Subject-predicate statements point to both what is the subject and the predicate and the relationship between them. Am I wrong? — TheMadFool

You have to face the problem of what it is that a predicate points to. You might take an extensional approach and say that it points to every thing that satisfies the predicate - so "red" points to all the things that are red. But then you have the issue of working out which things are red and which are not.

And then there is the problem of pointing to the relation between a name and a predicate.

All very complex stuff. And when t gets that complex, it's a good indication that one is looking at it wrong.

Also, how does one judge truth? — TheMadFool

This is the same as "what should one believe". There is not going to be one answer.

First meaning of a propsition must be be understood and only then can we evaluate truth. — TheMadFool

Or do you first see what is true and then learn to break it into a thing and a predicate?

To understand meaning the process of referring must be completed right? — TheMadFool

Meaning? What's that?

But if your claim is that in order to talk to people, we must be able to talk about things, well, I guess so.

The OP asserts that reference can't occur without truth. In other words, only true propositions refer.

How do we know whether a proposition is true or not? Is meaning not involved? Truth is about semantics isn't it?

And how do we get to the semantics of a proposition without it's reference being completed?

The proposition must complete the reference to a state of affairs, after which only can we determine truth/falsity.

SO a given statements can't be true unless it refers, and it can't refer unless it is true?

A pretty pickle.

You seem to think I agree with Purple. I don't.

I think we're not on the same page. What exactly do you mean by "refer"? — TheMadFool

I think it means the same thing as 'about', but only in the context of language.

Isn't language symbolic in that we words and everything we can do with it is the act of a symbol or string of symbols pointing or referring to something else? — TheMadFool

Like Banno said, not everything is a name. I would add that not every sentence is a proposition.

Subject-predicate statements point to both what is the subject and the predicate and the relationship between them. Am I wrong? — TheMadFool

Only the subject part of the sentence refers. You can't disconnect the predicate from a sentence and say that it refers to anything.

To understand meaning the process of referring must be completed right? — TheMadFool

Only if you conflate meaning and reference.

Only if you conflate meaning and reference. — Purple Pond

Can we judge the truth of a sentence without understanding it?

No.

Can we understand a sentence without the referring in a sentence being completed?

No.

Referring is independent of truth. Truth depends on referring being complete.

How can mere words be about anything? — Purple Pond

Always the risk of being out of step when jumping in.

The first response ought to be, they are. Are what? Are about something. Beyond this is just mechanics of particulars as practiced; existence, such as it is, is established. As "particulars" implies, there are particulars, and each different - or they wouldn't be particulars.

Follow this road and the rules and possibilities become just whatever they are for that particular. If similar across particulars, then the particulars are similar in respect of what is similar about them.

My point is that there is pretty much no mathematics of language - conventions about various things, but these are particulars. And that it is for the most part a mistake to look for such a mathematics - for most of us, anyway. Brain science may turn this upside down, but that's not yet happened.

So the proper science of the meaning of words is just to observe and record, and deduce such rules about usage as manifest themselves. More than that is just a version of snipe hunting.

One experiences wonder at these things; less, or more refined, as one ages into language. It's a loss of a sense of magic. Grieve, but grow!

Can we understand a sentence without the referring in a sentence being completed? — TheMadFool

Yes.

I don't think this conversation is going anywhere.

Yes.

I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. — Purple Pond

An example to help me...

There are non referential truths. The contention in the OP is wrong.

Statements like: It is raining. It's my birthday. It's 20 miles to New Jersey. These are all possibly true statements without a reference.

Statements like: It is raining. It's my birthday. It's 20 miles to New Jersey. These are all possibly true statements without a reference. — Purple Pond

Aren't you referring to "it" in these statements? "It" in this case is an unnamed subject. In many cases "it" refers to an already named subject. That "it" refers to an unnamed subject here just means that you can refer to something without naming it. "It" substitutes for a name even when the thing referred to has no name.

How do words refer? — Purple Pond

Not all words do. Names can.

All successful reference is picking out an individual entity to the exclusion of all others solely by virtue of shared meaning. What is referred to is the referent. The method of referring is language. Naming practices start it all.

Statements like: It is raining. It's my birthday. It's 20 miles to New Jersey. These are all possibly true statements without a reference. — Purple Pond

Not sure what you mean by "without a reference"...

"It's raining" refers to what is happening at the time. It's talking about actual events. It's what we say when water is falling from the sky in a particular form.

"It's my birthday" refers to a particular calendar day(the day of year that the speaker was born). Typically, when said it is referring to the day when it is being spoken. One could be talking about that particular day on another.

"It's twenty miles to New Jersey" refers to the distance between New Jersey and something else. Typically, one when something like that is said, the speaker is talking about the distance from where they are when speaking to New Jersey.

Can we judge the truth of a sentence without understanding it?

No.

Can we understand a sentence without the referring in a sentence being completed?

No.

Referring is independent of truth. Truth depends on referring being complete. — TheMadFool

I would concur up until the last claim, but find issues with it regarding two different senses of "truth".

One need not understand a propositional truth(true proposition) in order for it to be true.

A rudimentary thought/belief can be both meaningful and true without ever being spoken and/or otherwise uttered. Successful reference is existentially dependent upon language. Either truth and meaning are not or true thought/belief is not existentially dependent upon either truth or meaning.

If words don't refer then you aren't using language, you're just making noise.

If language does not necessarily refer, then how is that you can use language to refer to the fact that language doesn't refer? You end of contradicting yourself with this type of argument. Even when you say what isnt the case you are stating what is the case. Is it the case that words don't refer, or not?

Not sure what you mean by "without a reference"... — creativesoul

There's no reference for the subject "it" in the sentence.

"It's raining" refers to what is happening at the time. It's talking about actual events. It's what we say when water is falling from the sky in a particular form. — creativesoul

I don't think 'What's happening at this time' is a subject that you can refer to because a subject is one word.

I no longer think that statements refer to states of affairs. Statements only refer to the subjects where predicates can be ascribed.

''Harry Potter has a glass eye'' isn't a true statement but it's about/refers to Harry Potter. So, reference/aboutness can occur without truth. — TheMadFool

I think you are correct here.

An example to help me... — TheMadFool

'It's raining' has no reference, but it's perfectly understandable.

It's raining' has no reference, but it's perfectly understandable. — Purple Pond

Yes, only then can we ascertain it's truth.

You said:

Can we understand a sentence without the referring in a sentence being completed?

No. — TheMadFool

Why not? I already gave an example of and understandable sentence where no reference is completed. "it's raining". What does the "it" refer to? Nothing.

Why not? I already gave an example of and understandable sentence where no reference is completed. "it's raining". What does the "it" refer to? Nothing. — Purple Pond

Surely we can't isolate the sentence in a vacuum. It must have a context right? In ''it's raining'' the ''it'' refers to a particular time ''now'' or something else.

The "is" already means "now", not the "it". That would make it redundant. What else could "it" refer to?

Well, this is a matter of grammar. ''Is raining'' is grammatically deficient, so we add ''it'' for syntactical reasons. The point is that the sentence refers to something in a context so obvious that it's not worth mentioning. If one were to be specific and clear the sentence would be ''it's raining now/today/in Paris/etc.''

Well, this is a matter of grammar. ''Is raining'' is grammatically deficient, so we add ''it'' for syntactical reasons. — TheMadFool

And what does 'is raining' mean?

The point is that the sentence refers to something in a context so obvious that it's not worth mentioning. — TheMadFool

Can you name a context that it is so obvious?

If one were to be specific and clear the sentence would be ''it's raining now/today/in Paris/etc.'' — TheMadFool

Funny thing is the reference is still missing even when you add those words.

'It's raining' has no reference, but it's perfectly understandable — Purple Pond

'It' références the sky

I don't think 'What's happening at this time' is a subject that you can refer to because a subject is one word. — Purple Pond

Actual events aren't. That is what is being referred to.

:roll:

There's some conflation between a report and what is being reported upon hereabouts.

How did you understand ''it's raining''? Can you describe what it is that you apprehend from it?

If someone tells me ''it's raining'' then I would take it as ''at this time it's raining''. The speaker, because it's obvious, doesn't mention ''at this time''. This is how I understand the phrase ''it's raining''. The reference is there.