[434a]
Cratylus
Representing by likeness the thing represented is absolutely and entirely superior to representation by chance signs.Socrates
You are right. Then if the name is like the thing, the letters of which the primary names are to be formed must be by their very nature like the things, must they not? Let me explain. Could a painting, to revert to our previous comparison, ever be made like any real thing, if there were no pigments out of which the painting is composed, [434b] which were by their nature like the objects which the painter's art imitates? Is not that impossible?Cratylus
Yes, it is impossible.Socrates
In the same way, names can never be like anything unless those elements of which the names are composed exist in the first place and possess some kind of likeness to the things which the names imitate; and the elements of which they are composed are the letters, are they not?Cratylus
Yes.Socrates
Then I must now ask you to consider with me the subject which Hermogenes and I discussed a while ago. [434c] Do you think I am right in saying that rho is expressive of speed, motion, and hardness, or not?Cratylus
You are right.Socrates
And lambda is like smoothness, softness, and the other qualities we mentioned?Cratylus
Yes.Socrates
You know, of course, that we call the same thing σκληρότης (hardness) which the Eretrians call σκληρότηρ?Cratylus
Certainly.Socrates
Have rho and sigma both a likeness to the same thing, and does the final rho mean to them just what the sigma means to us, or is there to one of us no meaning? [434d] Cratylus
They mean the same to both.Socrates
In so far as rho and sigma are alike, or in so far as they are not?Cratylus
In so far as they are alike.Socrates
And are they alike in all respects?Cratylus
Yes; at least for the purpose of expressing motion equally.Socrates
But how about the lambda in σκληρότης? Does it not express the opposite of hardness?Cratylus
Well, perhaps it has no right to be there, Socrates; it may be like the cases that came up in your talk with Hermogenes, when you removed or inserted letters where that was necessary. I think you did right; and in this case perhaps we ought to put a rho in place of the lambda. [434e] Socrates
Excellent. However, do we not understand one another when anyone says σκληρόν, using the present pronunciation, and do you not now know what I mean?Cratylus
Yes, but that is by custom, my friend.Socrates
In saying “custom” do you think you are saying anything different from convention? Do you not mean by “convention” that when I speak I have a definite meaning and you recognize that I have that meaning? Is not that what you mean?
Representing by likeness the thing represented is absolutely and entirely superior to representation by chance signs.Socrates
You are right. Then if the name is like the thing, the letters of which the primary names are to be formed must be by their very nature like the things, must they not? Let me explain. Could a painting, to revert to our previous comparison, ever be made like any real thing, if there were no pigments out of which the painting is composed, [434b] which were by their nature like the objects which the painter's art imitates? Is not that impossible?Cratylus
Yes, it is impossible.Socrates
In the same way, names can never be like anything unless those elements of which the names are composed exist in the first place and possess some kind of likeness to the things which the names imitate; and the elements of which they are composed are the letters, are they not?Cratylus
Yes.Socrates
Then I must now ask you to consider with me the subject which Hermogenes and I discussed a while ago. [434c] Do you think I am right in saying that rho is expressive of speed, motion, and hardness, or not?Cratylus
You are right.Socrates
And lambda is like smoothness, softness, and the other qualities we mentioned?Cratylus
Yes.Socrates
You know, of course, that we call the same thing σκληρότης (hardness) which the Eretrians call σκληρότηρ?Cratylus
Certainly.Socrates
Have rho and sigma both a likeness to the same thing, and does the final rho mean to them just what the sigma means to us, or is there to one of us no meaning? [434d] Cratylus
They mean the same to both.Socrates
In so far as rho and sigma are alike, or in so far as they are not?Cratylus
In so far as they are alike.Socrates
And are they alike in all respects?Cratylus
Yes; at least for the purpose of expressing motion equally.Socrates
But how about the lambda in σκληρότης? Does it not express the opposite of hardness?Cratylus
Well, perhaps it has no right to be there, Socrates; it may be like the cases that came up in your talk with Hermogenes, when you removed or inserted letters where that was necessary. I think you did right; and in this case perhaps we ought to put a rho in place of the lambda. [434e] Socrates
Excellent. However, do we not understand one another when anyone says σκληρόν, using the present pronunciation, and do you not now know what I mean?Cratylus
Yes, but that is by custom, my friend.Socrates
In saying “custom” do you think you are saying anything different from convention? Do you not mean by “convention” that when I speak I have a definite meaning and you recognize that I have that meaning? Is not that what you mean?
