I disagree that assigning meaning to an unkown group of letters for one's own convenience automatically makes the word mean what an individual believes to be its meaning. It is sound and fury again signifying nothing.
If we were to agree that the basis of language lies in communication among people speaking a shared language, 'eoxlibnsdaienvlab' is equivalent to scribbles on a page, a stream of letters stirred chaotically with a stick, a chaotic and random assortment of letters. Because the chaos began with one source without the support of any known intention from the writer, at best we can wonder at the pronunciation and definition, but reach no agreement because there is no known precedent. So we could begin research. Has anyone seen this apparently chaotic arrangement of letters before? Can the meaning be clearly deduced from context? And so on.
But one person's declaration of meaning does not necessarily make it so. At some point there would need to be agreement, and in the case of the sentence I posted there is little chance we would all agree because the word 'eoxlibnsdaienvlab' could be interpreted in many ways, none of which might be generally agreed as intended meaning by any of us here. Most likely, most would agree that the arrangement was random and, finally, meaningless, therefore not a word at all.
However, if we are in agreement that %, a symbolic representation of the word percent, should be included in a list of words (though I disagree on this point), we should also include pictorial representations, such as ideographs. There is historical basis for such inclusions in language, especially considering pictographs used in the earliest of languages before any type of alphabetical representations of languages.
If we discuss English here, by definition a language shared among English-speaking peoples, I would suggest that eoxlibnsdaienvlab cannot be included as an English word because it lacks definition between any two speakers of English. A supposition of its definition by one speaker does not necessarily cement the meaning of this non-word, no matter how hard the cry and insistence. You might read the word lateritious in a sentence about plumbing, and without the aid of a dictionary assert the meaning to be "of pipes," but you would be in error. To see a group of unknown letters and assign immediate, unjustified meaning does not automatically cause those letters to become the meaning you assign. There must be agreement of interpretation of meaning at some point between speakers, and in the case of 'eoxlibnsdaienvlab,' we disagree. I was the writer of the letters and I assure you the lettering was random. I would hope writer's intention would carry some weight in interpreting a language that serves as a means to communicate.
