Even animals have the ability to recognize their parents. The fact that that most cultures have a word for father is nothing special. What I am arguing against is an object that exists independent of its parts that is the referent of the word 'father'.
New borns does not have the ability to recognize their parents.
The word father is nothing special, but it does not mean that there can not be an interpretation of it.
An object that exists independent from its parts only occurs when its parts are learned from the senses. Seeing an object and remembering the word that associates with the object classifies the object to be that specific word. If another person were to look at a different object, and associate the same word to it, what would be the outcome?
Once the word is said, it will be recalled to be that object. Different people will interpret only the object that they have learned. An object is defined by its shape, size, orientation, texture, etc...
If I were to name an unknown part, such as a $!#$!@, only a selected few would understand what it is. People who do not understand, will say that it does not exist? But it does to those who understand.
Even if a word were accepted conventionally, there will still be a different interpretation of it. Everyones' brains are different from one another.
*
Now, back to the topic.
It is true that a vask can be defined by the specific functions. However, it can also be defined by its physical appearance.
The term existing is too vague. I can have an object that looks like a vask, but never know its function. It "exists" solely because of our interpretation of what it is, and not primarily because of its function.
