I ask, then, about the greatest and noblest words,
truth (ἀλήθεια), falsehood (ψεῦδος), being (τὸ ὄν), and why name, the subject of our whole discourse, has the name ὄνομα.
Does the word μαίσθαι (search) mean anything to you?
Yes, it means seek.
The word ὄνομα seems to be a word composed from a sentence signifying this is a being about which our search is. You can recognize that more readily in the adjective ὀνομαστόν, for that says clearly that this is
ὄν οὗ μάσμα ἐστίν (being of which the search is). And ἀλήθεια (truth) is like the others; for the divine motion of the universe is, I think, called by this name, ἀλήθεια, because it is a divine wandering θεία ἄλη. But ψεῦδος (falsehood) is the opposite of motion; for once more that which is held back and forced to be quiet is found fault with, and it is compared to slumberers (εὕουσι); but the addition of the psi conceals the meaning of the word. The words τὸ ὄν (being) and οὐσία (existence) agree with ἀληθής with the loss of iota, for they mean going (ἰόν). And οὐκ ὄν (not being) means οὐκ ἰόν (not going),
and indeed some people pronounce it so.
I think you have knocked these words to pieces manfully, Socrates; but if anyone should ask you what propriety or correctness there was in these words that you have employed—ἰόν and ρἕον and δοῦν—
What answer should I make? Is that your meaning?
Yes, exactly.
We acquired just now one way of making an answer with a semblance of sense in it.
What way was that?
Saying, if there is a word we do not know about, that it is of foreign origin.
Now this may be true of some of them, and also on account of the lapse of time it may be impossible to find out about the earliest words; for since words get twisted in all sorts of ways, it would not be in the least wonderful if the ancient Greek word should be identical with the modern foreign one.
That is not unlikely.
It is indeed quite probable. However, we must play the gameA proverbial expression. and investigate these questions vigorously. But let us bear in mind that if a person asks
about the words by means of which names are formed, and again about those by means of which those words were formed, and keeps on doing this indefinitely, he who answers his questions will at last give up; will he not?
Yes, I think so.
Now at what point will he be right in giving up and stopping? Will it not be when he reaches the names which are the elements of the other names and words? For these, if they are the elements, can no longer rightly appear to be composed of other names. For instance, we said just now that ἀγαθόν was composed of ἀγαστόν and θοόν; and perhaps we might say that θοόν was composed of other words, and those of still others;
but if we ever get hold of a word which is no longer composed of other words, we should be right ill saying that we had at last reached an element, and that we must no longer refer to other words for its derivation.
I think you are right.
Are, then, these words about which you are now asking elements, and must we henceforth investigate their correctness by some other method?
Probably.
Yes, probably, Hermogenes; at any rate, all the previous words were traced back to these.
But if this be true, as I think it is, come to my aid again and help me in the investigation, that I may not say anything foolish in declaring what principle must underlie the correctness of the earliest names.
Go on, and I will help you to the best of my ability.
I think you agree with me that there is but one principle of correctness in all names, the earliest as well as the latest, and that none of them is any more a name than the rest.
Certainly.
Now the correctness of all the names we have discussed was based upon the intention of showing the nature of the things named.
Yes, of course.
And this principle of correctness must be present in all names, the earliest as well as the later ones, if they are really to be names.
Certainly.
But the later ones, apparently, were able to accomplish this by means of the earlier ones.
Evidently.
Well, then, how can the earliest names, which are not as yet based upon any others, make clear to us the nature of things, so far as that is possible,
which they must do if they are to be names at all? Answer me this question: If we had no voice or tongue, and wished to make things clear to one another, should we not try, as dumb people actually do, to make signs with our hands and head and person generally?