John, I'm sorry for the confusion, I'm talking about the sensory description, not of the refered object, but of the language doing the referencing.  There are two sets of sensory objects that refer to each other, for instance, the word "ball," which has its own phonological and visual (the letters of the word, for instance) presence, and the ball refered to, which may be blue, and on a table.  I'm assuming that when you are talking about F2, you're not talking about the phonological qualities of the words themselves, nor their written representation, but the invisible linkage between the words and object, which would not be a thing in itself, but a way of patterning one sensory object on another.  Is this accurate, in your opinion?  I think this is significant because the aural/rhythm pattern prescribed by the actual words you actually use to define the set will go far to shape the personality of the set and to a small degree the sensory experience you have toward the object of reference, not to mention how they draw on memory, and overlay/frame the object.  Very often the meaning of object is greatly dependent on how your description of it plays memory, and/or the opposite: the play of sensory memories triggered by the object will affect how you language it.  Of course, all this has a lot to do with anchoring, strategies, etc.. best, JS