BTW I think somehow what I actually had in mind was the Sanskrit concept: sphoṭa ~
>> and even if you make up a totally aseptic, esperanto kind of term,
>> once people start using it it will get messy again.
> That reminds me of my favorite philosopher, Charles Sanders Peirce,
> who complained about the way William James and others misinterpreted
> his version of pragmatism.
similar to the way Devanagari/Sanskrit scholars spoke of sphoṭa in language as a coherent and meaningful articulation of speech production and grammatical realization in discourse, I think "concepts" are very much part of the intersubjective play of language. Sphoṭa are individual inner intersubjective articulations (including their qualia and their (qualia's) conceptual underpinnings) ~
When a child in a developmental stage says "ma", "water" or "hot", as Vygotsky noticed they are not only articulating whole sentences, but also in some sort of "conceptual" way, as clusters of meaningful articulations, even though a developing child can not (and may not learn in her/his whole life) understand the genetics of heredity, the chemistry of compound molecules (H2O) or the molecular explanation of heat. Children even learn "gravitation" even if not much is said about it ~
I wonder how could I have possibly mistaken Sanskrit for Greek, but again I am not a linguist. ~