We are able to name objects (that which has form) or to name a relation between objects which our brain has worked out.
In assumption each and every name first and foremost refers to concept. Once we think beyond (or transcend) this assumption we realize that these nominal conceptions either reference an object (whether real, imaginary, hypothetical, and so on and so forth) . . . or they reference some sort of relation or comparison between objects that our brain has worked out (for example love, gravity, number, etc.) and we decided to name. The act of naming always relates the human who named to the object named or the conception conceived and so this is a sort of primal concept. The criteria for figuring out whether or not a human named an object or a concept is form. Form is that which is bounded from an immediate surrounding. This Gottlob Frege never figured out when he said "the concept horse is not a concept". He had his own complex categories, but his investigations are still useful to borrow from.
But the sort of furtive act in all this is naming our conceptions. We work out a relation or comparison between objects and name this relation or comparison. So naming sort of works an affinity between us and our brain-work. We treat our brain-work AS IF this were an object. In doing so we establish a sort of suprarational relation in this. We cannot literally relate to a work our brain consummated so we do a trick by reifying, that is imagining that this concept is an object and ourselves relating to it. This is sort of a transcendental if you want. As far as I know animals are not able to accomplish this, and this is one qualifier that sets us apart from the animals. We are freaks of nature, or children of God made in his image. Take your pick. I believe in the latter, but this is irrelevant to the discussion.
And this is what is confusing I think. Its easy to imagine Adam waking up, and naming that which has form (objects). But then Adam went to retire for the day and started working out relations between all these objects he named and then he named these relations. The way we can resolve whether or not a word concept relates back to object or concept in any given context is form. Does the referent have form? Yes or no?
I have this concept. . . I call it blah blah blah. Blah, blah, blah, is not a thing. Blah has no form, but I treat blah like a thing in the act of naming, thinking and communication. I reified. I converted this idea into an object. But I just ignore the fact I reified blah blah blah. Now I literally think that blah is an object that performs verbs and is involved in causal relations and undergoes change effects with the Earth, the Sun, the Moon, the stars and all atoms. Blah does it all. Blah is real. And with blah we can work miracles like travel back in time! Blah will take us to new galaxies. With blah we will inhabit new worlds!
But remember blah is just an idea I thought so don't take me too seriously. This is just for shits and giggles, and we make millions off of this concept. And besides we need another trillion dollars of public funds to validate this concept. And when we do we will announce this to the world, and all wonder.