Ah, Cratylus… 
like me he dealt intensively with the topic
how words are correlated with their particular meaning;
he considered this correlation as given by nature and
so naturally correct.
He has been strictly against the opinion that language is based on arbitrary convention.
At the same time, it is unclear how Cratylus made this concept compatible with the Heraclitean concept of the volatility of things
in general and his own epistemological skepticism.
Cratylus even intensified Heraclitus’ quotation that you cannot step into the same river twice (because he is already another then).
He pointed out that it is even impossible to step into the same river the very first time (because the river changes in that very moment – a bit comparable to the ethnological term of intersubjectivity).
Regarding statements, it means that when you are talking about something, it already changes while you are talking about it and therefore the statement becomes devaluated
(hm, sounds a little bit negative – why? The river also does not get devaluated doesn’t he? Should be discussed…).
As far as I am concerned, Almut and Thomas are naming things for me. And the sound of the words and the pronunciation makes the difference. And – thanks a lot – they are not always saying ‘no’.
Because if you always hear a ‘no’ you are either getting stupid (not learning more words) or you begin to think that your name is ‘No’ (the latter famous dog trainer Cesar Millan emphasized).
Well, of course I cannot read Platon’s Cratylus (fictive) Dialogue
(in fact – it is more a trialogue – Cratylus, Hermogenes and Socrates) – even Almut says that it is ‘hard stuff to read’. But we both understand the essence of it and the basic questions behind:
Why are things named as they are?
Are names the only way to comprehend the nature of things?
And are they given by nature or based on a social compromise?