[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I have ontological objections to this claim.

Originally Posted by mbyron

Numbers can't be words, though we do have words that refer to numbers (such as 'one' and 'seventy-two').

I thought about ignoring your category error and realized, "it's Monday, I'd better not."

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm gratified that you're working so hard just to please me, so it seems a little bit petty to say no. Words don't symbolize numbers, numerals do. But you're getting warmer!

Originally Posted by mbyron

Hey, that's good!

The word 'two' is the English word that refers to the number two, which is an abstract object. The concept is the meaning of the word, and is also distinct from the object. (To see why, imagine that there had never been any humans at all, and so no languages -- the number two would still exist, so it must be distinct from any concept.)

We can talk about the object -- the number -- in different languages, referring to it as 'deux' or 'zwei' or 'dos', etc. But it's one and the same object, no matter which word we use. The unity of the object explains why all of the different words can share the same meaning.

Is that enough semantics for one day?

You are my hero.