Philippe Caquant wrote at 2004-04-27 12:33:42 (-0700) > I think the English say something like "the proof of > the pudding is when you eat it". So I'm tempted the > answer the same. Let's take, maybe not a fox > (inconvenient), but a matchbox for ex. I can put it in > my pocket. I cannot put a "red" or a "burn" in my > pocket. That's what I suppose that a matchbox doesn't > belong to the same conceptual category as "red" or "to > burn". If of course don't talk about reality, which I > ignore, but about concepts. > > A fox may bite me, but I'm pretty sure no "brown" ever > will bite me, because there is no such thing as a > brown, except in language games maybe. > Not at all. This is simply because you're speaking English. If you were speaking a language in which any content lexeme could be used both as an argument and as a predicate, "a brown" would simply be "a brown thing". There are many brown things which can bite you, and many red things which you can put in your pocket.