A sub definition is the definition for a particular class of chairs. Every chair will have a personal object definition as well. A personal object definition is the definition of that chair and that chair only. This means that every chair has 3 types of definitions. It has the head/primary definition, which it has in common with all chairs. It has the sub-definition which it has in common with all chairs of its class. And it has a personal object definition.

The personal object definition is the definition for that chair and that chair only.

The sub-definition can become more elaborate when the chair would be a sub-class of a sub-class of a sub-class... of chairs. Now if this is so for chairs, is this then also the case for other objects? Let's take the object "bird" as an example.

Here there is a physical head/primary object "bird" that all birds have in common: the first bird. There is also a head/primary definition to which we refer when we speak about birds. That definition is the meaning of the word "bird." Each bird has a sub-definition which defines the species it belongs to. And every bird has a personal object definition which is specific for each existing bird.

These two examples clearly show that there is no one rule saying all objects have a physical head/primary object, a sub-definition and a personal object-definition. It depends from object to object. There are certain classes for which is true that all objects in that class and all sub-classes have a physical head/primary object, a sub-definition and a personal object definition.

To figure out which objects do and do not have a head/primary object it is necessary to go back to the properties. There were natural and non-natural properties. How could this learn us to figure out which linguistic objects do have a physical head/primary object and which ones don't ?

First what is a linguistic object. It is the object we refer to when we speak about, for example, chairs, birds, meteors. We refer to it as an object, but the object does not exist, we can not touch it. Rather it is a linguistic object. A linguistic object refers to the head/primary object, or to the object itself. This object has a head/primary definition, it has a sub-definition and it has a personal object definition, yet we can not touch it. This linguistic object is a word. Words can refer to objects, properties, relations and so on. A linguistic object is a noun.

Chapter: Exercising your mind

An example of describing a non-existing object can be found in Umberto Eco's book Kant and the Platypus, pp 289-291.

Another example is the following text, where an non-existent island [a compound object] is described using non-existent and existent objects. The text is a description for a book I'm working on, a personal project, not for publication.