Words Mean Things II... The Revenge...

Bear with me, I'm having some expression difficulties since a few months, so this may be a little weird ...

I was explaining this to Maître Jestor a little while ago, and then the turn of this thread became too much to not say what I can about it ...

Yes, words mean things. But not only words.

We need to have definitions for words - but those definitions are only descriptions of what the word is likely to mean. It is not so rigid as it may appear if one reads a dictionary. Any dictionary. And some dictionaries are more reputable than others ...

But, be that as it may, have you ever noticed that language learners have a difficult time relying on dictionaries ? It is that one could memorise an entire dictionary in any language, with all of its definitions, and not be able to speak that language to communicate.

Language - or communication by language, whether written or spoken, is not simply a chain of definitions. One can define (describe) words, more or less, and one can even make rudimentary definitions of the meaning bearing morphemes, both free and bound. But one would have only very basic communication with such limits.

Words are very useful, and yes, of course they must carry ideas on them, but there are perhaps more important levels of meaning making beyond the lexical. We have the discursive level where the most of the negotiation of meaning happens : the syntactic, semantic and even idiomatic ... Not to mention para-language - everything which is not verbal - : prosody (tone), gestures, facial expression &c. Not to mention semiotics ...

So, you can see that although words mean things too ( ), they are not the only things that carry meaning : entire patterns of human behaviour also mean things. And those meanings are more, or even wildly different, than the summary of the definitions of the words therein.

EDIT : (sorry -- I had forgotten some)

... about how the meanings that we make are not isolated either, but describe the relationships between the things we are talking about : the relationships that we ourselves make, but the communication then relates those to the relationships as experienced by others ...

Now, when we go back to talking about "faith" (which is but one example out of all the things that one could possibly talk about), we're really not talking about anything that one "does". We are really talking about what someone has faith in, and possibly about how that is manifested, why that faith is invested and so forth. Essentially, when talking about faith or beliefs or many other things of this sort, we really cannot discuss it objectively - and we shouldn't want to either (that is what causes our conflicts) - but only subjectively. There is a certain danger in having to make clear meaning of things we can only consider apophatically. But there are many ineffable things that fall into this category ... not all having to do with spiritual beliefs but of generally anything that we feel -- that we think -- is true. Even substantiation by evidence is something which one puts one's faith in ...



How did I do ?

Alexandre Orion wrote: Even substantiation by evidence is something which one puts one's faith in ...

Spot on!!

You did Lexical… :huh:
...
I think.
...
I still have no idea what that word means. Hahhahahahhaha :woohoo:

I think you explained it all whether well Alexandre. And I think people are still going to argue about it.

Unfortunately, as I have said before in this same thread, I don’t think it is about understanding at all.. Just being right. Sure, others will have ideas and points of view. But we don’t seem to be expressing those on the topic. Just going on about how each other is wrong.

I really liked 'apophatically.' What a delicious word. And also it makes the relevant point that, by definition ( :evil: ) you cannot prove a negative.

Khaos thought he might be banned if he kept it up with me, but, as long as no rules get broke, I can keep at it all day...

No, and im not sure how you came to this conclusion.

I had pointed out that I had in the past received warnings in PM in regards to my conduct at this site which ultimately culminated in "shape up, or ship out."

That wasnt a thought, it is what it is.

In regards to your recently created threads, no, not the case, though I have yet to see other individuals so called out as to have threads dedicated to them, as well as some other choice words selected by others posts.

Still, all irrelevant.

Suffice to say, I couldnt keep up because I would break rules, and like last time, will refuse to engage in such threads because of that.

This thread I am refusing to engage you in because you obviously have an axe to grind here, and I see little will be gained in engaging the original subject matter. Something Gisteron should have seen a mile away when you stated in another thread that you were feeling ornery.

or·nery
adjective \ˈȯr-nə-rē, ˈär-; ˈȯrn-rē, ˈärn-\

: easily annoyed or angered

: difficult to deal with or control

So I can gather that you are not in this thread to listen or discuss in any productive way.

As to where Gisteron might have thought there was something to be gained in this discussion, there is clearly not.

Could I get into an argument with you?

Certainly, and get called rude by others and most likely get myself banned.

Im sorry, but I must decline.

This thread is a one way street going nowhere fast.

One could have gathered that by the first thread on words meaning things.

Khaos, I normally disagree with just about everything you say or at least the manner in which you say it, but this time I'm with you.

Khaos, I normally disagree with just about everything you say or at least the manner in which you say it

This made me laugh abnormally hard and for some time.

Thank you for that.

lol, back to definitions...

My orneriness was me saying in in my own way, that I felt the need to post this, as I feel it is not a 'finished discussion'...

The same way I might ask my in-laws if I could 'steal' a coke from their fridge...

I am in this thread to listen and learn, seriously, but, I do speak a little differently....

Yes, you have received PMs asking you to watch yourself... So have others...

I dont understand what you cant relay and how "not being yourself" is preventing you from being able to respond...

Maybe you could explain? I PMed you to ask this very question... Maybe you have not read it yet?

Why does "words meaning things" present such an issue?

Ok, lets go that route....

I am really asking....


ignore everything else I wrote, and I will start over....

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Why does "words meaning things" present such an issue?

Anyone?

I chose the word 'faith' because, as I said, I said the two of you had it, and was informed I was incorrect...

This is a big stumbling block, as is pointed out about the law, and about many aspects of life...

Assumptions on what was meant, "I didnt realize you meant THAT'...

And people get ticky...

So, what is the hang up?

I believe I may be missing context…

I do not speak like many do and I’m certain I have offended people before. It is not my intention to and when I do I apologize as such. But why would one not be able to express themselves due to what? Not being able to be one’s self? That doesn’t even make sense to me… we are always who we are, aren’t we? It may be required that we tone down our excessive personality, as I have had to learn to do from time to time, but I am still me and quite able to get my point across.

For me, this does not add up… :blink:

“Why does ‘words meaning things’ present such an issue?”
Does it? :huh:

When I put out a definition it is not to show others that they are wrong but to illustrate the frame of reference I am using. Words in themselves are meaningless and only aquire that which we attribute to them as individuals. If we share an understanding of a meaning then the conveyed message can more easily be interpreted as it was meant in transmition.
I guess my ‘hang up’ is that we are supposedly all adults here and relatively intelligent and yet we have to have this discussion at all… other than that I see no issue.

Wescli Wardest wrote: I guess my ‘hang up’ is that we are supposedly all adults here and relatively intelligent and yet we have to have this discussion at all… other than that I see no issue.

Ouch