This is essentially how I understand grammar. It rules are not based on the the ontological representation of what happens in this world. Words and meaning can often be self defeating. That being, a squircle as in square circle, doesn’t even make any sense, but it has a word and it has a meaning that can’t exist. But words like that can pop up all the time, but not so distinct and apparent in its impossibility. A lot of words don’t refer to proper ontology, because proper ontology is a deeper manner than what people need for language, or to express things in certain manner. Persuasive dialogue and rhetoric perhaps. I don’t necessarily think that the grammatical form of a word being abstract or concrete is conducive to the ontological nature of it being an abstraction - through precepts, cognition, and conceptualization of our precepts. When I refer to a tennis match it can be abstract compared to the tennis match, which is concrete. So by tennis match, I am referring to a specific tennis match. In that there is a cognition of multiple precursors and events required to form the conceptualization of a tennis match, which can be abstracted from its greater surroundings as well. So it can be a matter of philosophy - and in this thread I am asking about the matter of philosophy - not the matter of rules of grammar.