H. P. Grice, "A reply to Anscombe on the two alleged 'senses' of 'see'"

J. L. Austin, who rightly opposed the view that there are two senses of “see” ac¬  cording as the seeing has to be veridical or not, remarked casually that there  were perhaps two senses of “object of sight”. What Grice and Warnock call a 'visum.'  I think it was in this connection  that he contrasted “Today I saw a man (which I assume was) born in Jerusalem” and “Today I saw  a man shaved in Oxford” — both said at Oxford.   At any rate, one says, you  didn’t see him born today.  Perhaps you did see someone being shaved.   So  the one description, while true of what you saw, in a sense does not give what  you saw.   A description which is true of a material object of the verb “to see”,  but which states something that absolutely or in the circumstances “you  can’t have seen”, necessarily gives only a material object of seeing.