@wundayatta The distinction cannot be merely a matter of prior existence or no prior existence, as I point out in the original question. We do not invent children, after all, but they lack prior existence. It has been suggested by @marinelife that conscious construction of components must therefore be part of the concept of invention. Yet the Fing-Longer does not seem like an invention to me. While it may be new, it strikes me as somehow not creative enough to count as a proper invention. It’s just a glove with a long index finger, after all. Maybe I’m wrong about this, but I’d like to be convinced. Thus my asking about the conceptual boundaries of what is and what is not properly an invention.
@flutherother The conversation here has already suggested that the word “invention” is not fairly well understood. We have disagreement, and thus the concept isn’t as clear as we might think. Contra_ the ordinary language philosophers, then, it seems that competent word usage is not all there is to understanding. Perhaps there are boundary cases that would confound even the US Patent Office (or its counterpart in other countries—not all of which consider the same things to fall under their jurisdiction). So again, I thought I’d ask about the conceptual boundaries of invention.
@YoBob Yes, innovation seems like another factor we might want to build into the concept. A very good point, I think. And as you say, the prior existence of an invention’s components may be less important to what we consider an invention (and perhaps what we consider to be a good invention) the greater the innovation is. So we need to keep in mind that originality can consist in rethinking the familiar in unfamiliar ways.