outside their house. The youngest child usually the son of the family reads the Christmas story, after which the bonfire is lit. The way the flames spread shows the luck of the house in the coming year. When the fire burns, psalms are sung, and when it sinks, everyone leaps over the embers making wishes. Early on Christmas morning everyone goes to Mass. At this Mass another bonfire is lit in the middle of the floor. While the wood is blazing, ancient hymns are sung and the celebrant carries a figure of the Christ Child around the building. After this the celebrant then touches the nearest person in a "touch of peace". This touch is passed from one to another until everyone has received it. Christmas dinner is chicken, oranges, nuts and pastries. But it is on New Year's Day that children receive presents. They are brought their gifts by the youngest of the camels that carried the Three Wise Men to Bethlehem. The children leave water and hay outside the house of the camel
the department, as in "Emerson Hall isn't going to like this." A casual hearer might easily have gotten the idea that "Emerson Hall" names a person.) Or one might mistake a shadow for a live human being and give it a name. In none of these cases is it plausible to say that subsequent uses of the name in question really refer to the categorially erroneous item. Devitt and Sterelny (1987) call this the "qua-problem." They concede that the celebrant at a naming ceremony, or other person responsible for any of a name's groundings, must not be categorically mistaken and must indeed intend to refer to something of the appropriate category. This is a mild con- cession to Descriptivism. There are more objections (some of them further ones of Evans'). The majority position seems to be that Kripke initially overreacted to the Descriptivist picture. He was right to insist that causalhistorical chains of
annaabi.ee 
