And clearly if one had absolutely no term signifying likeness or similarity, and if one wished to indicate say, that something resembled a goat, all one could do would be to point at the goat and the object resembling it and say 'goat,' 'goat.' Since the name was held to be part of the thing named, such a method would strengthen the idea that resemblance was equivalent to identity.

This point of view can also be observed in children, who have no difficulty in thinking that any imitation or toy model is just as good as the object or animal imitated, and playing with it as such.

Even to call a thing by the name of any object is sufficient with children to establish its identity with that object for the purposes of a game or mimicry, and a large part of children's games are based on such pretensions.

They also have not yet clearly grasped the difference between likeness and identity, and between an imitation of an object and the object itself.

A large part of the category of substituted ceremonies and sacrifices are based on this confusion between similarity and identity.