I like that answer. Thanks.

Why isn't the ordinary notion of games confusing?

Presumably because when we play games or talk about games we aren't attempting to build an ideal epistemological foundation. Which suggests to me that "language games" shouldn't be confusing as a vague term for anthropological activity within ordinary language philosophy. Rather, it is a tool too blunt for a different job one had in mind.

Easy. To what does "Hello" refer? — Banno

If not all words refer, then meaning cannot be the very same thing as reference. Yes?

Unless not all words have meaning...


Which way would you go? — Banno

I received many hellos from my co-workers when arriving at work this morning. "Hello" refers to something here. It refers to the act of greeting. So, "Hello" is also a noun that refers to itself - the act of greeting someone.

Would you consider, "Hello" informative? Are you informed of something when someone says, "Hello"? If you are, then what is it that you are informed of? What does it refer to?

When saying, "Hello" to someone, the listener understands your intent to greet, so "Hello" refers to your intent as it caused you to say "Hello". Meaning is related to causation.

It is a fact is that we can misinterpret the meaning of words when spoken or written by someone. This is because we are misinterpreting their intent, not some context the words are spoken or written in. After all, the speaker can get the context wrong too, or may not be a native English speaker. It is what they mean, or intend, that matters. Some are simply better at communicating their intent than others.

That's just wrong, Harry.

A reference to an act of greeting has an entirely different structure. Something like: "Paul greeted Harry on his way into work this morning." "Hello" does not refer to a greeting, it is a greeting.

Nor will intent do; referring to an intent would be: "Paul intended to greet Harry on his way into work this morning." But that is not what "hello" does.