shellb: The word *love* whether written or spoken [...] symbolises different things to everybody.
amemeba: But so does the term "apple" or "snowski" or "dipstick". Such is the interaction between man and words that no word has exactly the same meaning each time we use it.
OK. We haven't established what a word is, but we're on to meaning. OK. So "apple" means a certain kinda fruit, mostly, but on occasion it means other things to other people. But for language to work, and words (whatever they are), meanings (whatever they are), ideas (whatever they are), and people (you get the idea) have to come together in some kind of consensus by convention. In short, there needs to be a commonality, communality, and cooperation.
Yes, "apple" and "love" mean all sorts of things to all sorts of people, but they are commonly used in such a way that their meanings are restricted by all sorts of things, but especially by the other words in the sentence (or utterance). Oh, dear, dear, dear me: now I've gone and brought syntax into it (whatever that is). The one thing that seems to be lacking in other forms of animal communication (than the human one under discussion). But folks called lexicographers (the harmless drudges that they be) have gone about the monumental and holpless task of cataloging this words and describing their meanings by the use of other words, originally synonyms, but currently and usually sentences. When I say "apple" in isolation, it's tough to say what I mean (especially if as so oftenit is an non sequitur), but if I say "Whose apple is this?" in a certain context (e.g., pointing at a fruit on the table amongst at least one other human speaker of English) apple has a pretty narrow meaning. (Let's leave out personal, let alone cultural, connotations, like apples are my favorite fruit or that my mother was killed when somebody dropped a load of apples on her head, etc.) Apple will have a different meaning if I say "Watch out for the road apple." having nothing to do with the fruit. Or "We're going to the Big Apple. We leave tomorrow by train."
amemeba: Words didn't build the pyramids or send mankind to the moon, Amemeba. Ideas did that.
wsieber: his audacious statement brings to the fore that, underlying the present dispute we have the classic deep rift between idealists and realists.
amemeba: notice that wsieber used the term "audacious". Please detail the process involved in signing that quality.
There's more to this problem than the aforementioned classic rift. There's also the earlier problem of physis 'nature' vs convention 'convention'. And since we're in an argumentative mood, my dear amemeba, why haven't you answered my question about which came first, ideas or words. My injunction to not use words is dropped.
As for "audacious", the word (or is it a sign or a symbol?), now you've gone and brought qualities into it, by which I assume you mean the same thing as properties (or attributes) that dear old Aristotle said could be predicated about things (not words, but maybe also ideas). But I could be wrong. I could have misinterpreted your question. Nevertheless. I really cannot detail any process (by polishing an apple or an idea) since the process is psychological (cognitive not behavioral) at best and chemical at worst. Neither can you nor anybody else. Therefore the question was rhetorical. Not that that implies it has no meaning, just one outside my bailiwick.
amemeba: (Rexembxr txe fulx pagx lxtter thax wxs pasxed xbout ox thx intxrnex xith mxxspellxd woxds thxoughout txe messxge, yxt exeryxne whx rexd thxm fouxd thxm exsy xo rxad.?)
No, but I remember other such texts that floated around the web, in which letters were jumbled. This piece of folklore is rigged from the get-go. Take the words out of context, and put them in a list in other than sentential order, along with some non-word words. (And rather than using an 'x' use non-letters, or better yet use more common 'letters', and change them occasionally.) Doing something as simple as this takes away much of the redundancy in the message. And makes it more difficult. Are they still words? Perhaps, but we haven't really said what words are yet. There's always the albeit problematic) theory that words don't really exist. but are just a curious epiphenomenon of speech and/or language. Discuss.
But where are we going with this? Glad you asked. The question at hand, saying what is a word and what is not is impossible to answer at this point in time, so I guess we should pass over this thread in silence. (Too late.)
