The problem is that humans are not deterministic, context-free, finite state machines (on the macro level). The human brain does not actually use Chomsky-style context-free grammars, but is very much context-bound. A word is just a symbol that gets associated with certain emotions, thoughts, ideas... but there is no such thing as a concrete definition. This is why modern dictionaries no longer attempt to tell you what a word means exactly, but focus more on various contexts in which it can be used.

Take for example a very simple word: 'brick'. To you, it means a rectangular block, used in building. However, suppose you have a construction worker and his assistant: the construction worker may say 'brick!' meaning 'fetch me one of the red bricks in that pile' and his assistant will understand him because the word has gained a new meaning throughout their professional relationship.

This suggests that the meanings of words vary from one country to another, from one city to another, from one community to another... even from one family to another. Believing that all people share the exact same definitions for the words they use is just lying to yourself.

I'm not sure that your example is exactly what you intended.

"Brick!" in that example still means "a rectangular block, used in building" but, being a command, has an implied "Bring me a"/"I need a" that you need to pretend is there.

I agree that language is heavily context based. I think a good example of what you're saying is diner lingo.

I lot of misunderstandings happen in email simply because you lack some of the context that the message was originally written in.



Believing that most people share, at most, a few definitions of the words they use is what makes language work.

I wonder if someone can tell me what word describes words that become part of a lexicon - such as - 'xerox' as a replacement/substitute word for 'photocopy'.

I believe it's called genericide and the words themselves are proprietary eponyms.

Thanks, great site too.

This is very well put.
I think to say we are one way as opposed to the other i.e. deterministic or relative or name another if you like, is a common sticking point or communication killer, it is a mistake we make and all face and employ at times and especially in politics.

I notice this in philosophy forums were many threads are started out with a question of is it this vs. that which is a disabled question form to begin with and leaving no room for solvency compared to reality unless the question is reformulated properly. Most often both perspectives offered as false opposites hold truths and relevancies to our human conditions.
We want to think that reason is our best or only intelligence that we communicate through which is seldom the case.
So we pit our linear thoughts and linear language intellects against other forms of our own thoughts that are intellects but not linear and this reflects as a disability in our arguments.
We say reality is this rather than that instead of saying it is relative to this defining truth when I look from this perspective and relative to that when I look from that other perspective. This is contrived division. We also communicate more holistically like qtwerp points out.

I jumped into this thread half by chance and half by my eye catching someone saying things were only one way.

There are more perspectives to see, there is always more to see.

The more we allow ourselves to see of our own thought processes the more we can choose between those forms and attributes and combine them the better.

If we let them choose us because it works for what we are pushing in argument at the time instead, then we are, then from there on out, ruled by only half the truth or less.