sudanglo:
The English word 'refer' has several distinct meanings which the Wells dictionary illustrates, giving as translations aludi; resendi, direkti; (sin) turni; referenci; rilati.

There you go. Rilati.

I think almontri comes the closest to what you're looking for, but I also agree with sudanglo... you can get to the same exact sense by just phrasing the sentence differently. His examples pretty much nailed it.

erinja:

T0dd:But to say "Words don't always mean what they refer to", I feel that something else is needed.

Vortoj ne ĉiam signifas tion, kion ili almontras.

What do you think? Is that relatively clear?

That sentence is not even clear to me in English, I have to say. In my mind, something means what it refers to. It may seem to refer to one thing but really refers to something else. In that case I would paraphrase it, that it says one thing but means another.

It's the kind of thing that perhaps only philosophers care about, but suffice it to say that meaning and reference do not always coincide.

For example, the expressions "creature with a heart" and "creature with a kidney" refer to the same set of creatures. The expressions are, as we say, co-extensive. But they do not mean the same thing.

I think you could use "aludi" in your translation of this sentence, though you hesitate to do it due to the English use of "allude". Reta Vortaro has example sentences; where not only people "aludi", but also things; one of the examples given is "la participa finaĵo «ot» aludas estontecon pli ĝuste ol deviĝecon"

Ah, excellent! That's just the sort of thing I was looking for.

This may also be a more modern usage, in the tekstaro, it didn't show up to refer to things alluding, rather than people, until "Lingvistikaj aspektoj de Esperanto", by Wells.

That's good enough for me. Obviously Wells felt the same semantic gap that I'm feeling, and pressed aludi into service to fill it. My best course is to continue with that model. Thank you!

@sudanglo -- Yes, there are workarounds that make it possible to avoid the word "refer", but of course if you want to write about the concept of reference directly, that kind of thing quickly gets tiresome, not to mention obscure.

As for grammatical puzzles...I can't think of one at the moment, but I'm sure I'll come up with one.

erinja:"la participa finaĵo «ot» aludas estontecon pli ĝuste ol deviĝecon"

What exactly does this sentence mean?

Seems nobody likes my suggestion of 'rilati'. Any reasons why? I have a sneaky feeling that Russians would use this word for such a sentence. Correct me if I'm wrong.

When you say that a 'word refers to something', then is this not the same a saying that the word has a 'connection/relation with/to something'?

Chainy:Seems nobody likes my suggestion of 'rilati'. Any reasons why? I have a sneaky feeling that Russians would use this word for such a sentence. Correct me if I'm wrong.

When you say that a 'word refers to something', then is this not the same a saying that the word has a 'connection/relation with/to something'?

I don't like rilati because it's far too general. Words have connections to things that they don't refer to, as well as to things that they do refer to.

Chainy:

erinja:"la participa finaĵo «ot» aludas estontecon pli ĝuste ol deviĝecon"

What exactly does this sentence mean?

The participial ending "ot" refers to futurity more than it refers to obligation.

I'm not sure about the word 'aludi' for this kind of sentence. After all, doesn't 'aludi' always have the suggestion of it being 'nerekte' (indirect)?

What exactly is 'nerekte' about the verb 'to refer' in the following sentence:

"Words don't always mean what they refer to"

- in the sentence, the word directly refers to something, but then it can also have other meanings (which, if anything, would be the things 'indirectly alluded/referred to').

Chainy:I'm not sure about the word 'aludi' for this kind of sentence. After all, doesn't 'aludi' always have the suggestion of it being 'nerekte' (indirect)?

What exactly is 'nerekte' about the verb 'to refer' in the following sentence:

"Words don't always mean what they refer to"

- in the sentence, the word directly refers to something, but then it can also have other meanings (which, if anything, would be the things 'indirectly alluded/referred to').

This is why I was originally unhappy with aludi. In English, at least, "allude" has that nuance of indirect reference, as in "literary allusions". But there isn't always an exact match from one language to another. Since there's precedent for aludi in Wells, and he's using it in just the way I need, it seems like a good idea to go with that.

In normal conversation, this would never be an issue, but in any field that needs to make careful distinctions between meaning and reference (literary criticism, for example), it's important.

T0dd:

Chainy:

erinja:"la participa finaĵo «ot» aludas estontecon pli ĝuste ol deviĝecon"

What exactly does this sentence mean?

The participial ending "ot" refers to futurity more than it refers to obligation.

This sentence makes me cringe. Where on earth did 'deviĝeco' come from?! Has anyone ever heard of such a word before? Try a Google search, for example.

What's wrong with simply saying 'devo'?! Or maybe, if you really like spicing things up a bit 'devigeco'? (note the 'g', rather than 'ĝ')

I really don't see this sentence as setting a precedent of the use of 'aludi' in the case that we are looking at. Both ReVo and NPIV both clearly indicate the 'nerekte' (indirect) nature of 'aludi'. Maybe 'allude' is indeed what Wells wanted to say in the sentence above?! (if Wells did indeed write that)