Words and Their Meanings

[Sunstone]

Most words in the English Language have more than one meaning. Yet, many of us -- perhaps even most of us -- tend to favor one or two meaning(s) for a word over others. And we might even argue to the death that the only proper meaning for a word is the one we ourselves give it.

So, what's going on there? Why is it so often important to us to assert that a word has only the meaning we ourselves favor for it? Is there some evolutionary reason for this commonplace chauvinism? Does it stem from a lack of education? Intelligence? Or is there some other cause involved?

What do you think?

 

[LuisDantas]

It is difficult to allow for the desires of others when we don't fully understand where they will lead those other people.

And we are, by nature and at least arguably evolution, driven to want to pursue goals and fulfill projects. Often enough that is a survival need, even.

Also, it is just plain frustrating to try and consistently fail to communicate due to a lack of common understanding what words should mean. We could try to learn other people's meanings, but that has hardships of their own, not the least of them being that those meanings are not well expressed and clear all that often. Some concepts only seem to have a clear meaning due to cultural circunstances.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Sunstone,

Words and Their Meanings
Most words in the English Language have more than one meaning. Yet, many of us -- perhaps even most of us -- tend to favor one or two meaning(s) for a word over others. And we might even argue to the death that the only proper meaning for a word is the one we ourselves give it.

So, what's going on there? Why is it so often important to us to assert that a word has only the meaning we ourselves favor for it? Is there some evolutionary reason for this commonplace chauvinism? Does it stem from a lack of education? Intelligence? Or is there some other cause involved?
What do you think?

Nothing like that; am open t learn the exact connotation of any word used since thwy are labels for an understanding and without the underlining understanding words have no meaning.

Love & rgds

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Semantic purism seems to be just a reason to be lazier than normal. If you can convince others that your meaning is the only true meaning then you don't have to put forward any effort to change yourself.

 

[SkylarHunter]

I guess people feel more comfortable with the meaning they are familiar with. When you tell them there are other possible meanings they get defensive because they don't want to admit they might not be entirely right. Maybe it's a matter of pride.
There might be a bit of laziness there as well.

 

[Willamena]

Why is it so often important to us to assert that a word has only the meaning we ourselves favor for it?

Mostly because the meaning we favour at any given time is what we're trying to say.

Is there some evolutionary reason for this commonplace chauvinism?

Is there some evolutionary reason that you chose to call it chauvinism rather than simple bias?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Is there some evolutionary reason that you chose to call it chauvinism rather than simple bias?

Looks to me like a tiny bit of referential mockery.

 

[Vinayaka]

Most words in the English Language have more than one meaning. Yet, many of us -- perhaps even most of us -- tend to favor one or two meaning(s) for a word over others. And we might even argue to the death that the only proper meaning for a word is the one we ourselves give it.

So, what's going on there? Why is it so often important to us to assert that a word has only the meaning we ourselves favor for it? Is there some evolutionary reason for this commonplace chauvinism? Does it stem from a lack of education? Intelligence? Or is there some other cause involved?

What do you think?

As I see it, we only have one reference point, our own subconscious mind. None of us, as far as I know, are mind readers. So it's natural to have a singular definition, whatever combination of brain waves we have on a personal level. It's also a time waster to delve into via discussion what each word means to another person. So, out of laziness, we just assume (often incorrectly) that others have a similar notion to our own. Yes it causes a lot of difficulty, especially with religious terms.

David is tall.
No David is short.
David is cruel.
David is a kind guy.

All are true, from the individual's perspective, because we don't know which David we're discussing. ... David Smith, David Jones, David Black, David Davidson

 

[Sunstone]

Is there some evolutionary reason that you chose to call it chauvinism rather than simple bias?

Quit being brilliant! Just quit it!

 

[Sunstone]

As I see it, we only have one reference point, our own subconscious mind. None of us, as far as I know, are mind readers. So it's natural to have a singular definition, whatever combination of brain waves we have on a personal level. It's also a time waster to delve into via discussion what each word means to another person. So, out of laziness, we just assume (often incorrectly) that others have a similar notion to our own. Yes it causes a lot of difficulty, especially with religious terms.

David is tall.
No David is short.
David is cruel.
David is a kind guy.

All are true, from the individual's perspective, because we don't know which David we're discussing. ... David Smith, David Jones, David Black, David Davidson

Those are good points, but why do you suppose so many of us are ready to assert that our own favored meanings for words are their only legitimate meanings?

 

[Vinayaka]

Those are good points, but why do you suppose so many of us are ready to assert that our own favored meanings for words are their only legitimate meanings?

Ego, ego, and more ego.

I can't see any other reason than that, other than that it's natural based on the reasoning I gave in the first post. Personally, I have difficulty entering a discussion unless I'm pretty sure we're talking the same thing. Kind of a waste of time.

Along the same line, I heard a funny commentary the other day on the word 'resigned', by two sports guys. One had read it as meaning 'quit', and the other had read it as 're-signed or got a new contract'. So the ensuing discussion was weird until they figured it out.

 

[columbus]

Those are good points, but why do you suppose so many of us are ready to assert that our own favored meanings for words are their only legitimate meanings?

I think it is often because they are very attached to the concept they mean by the word. If someone uses it in even a slightly different way their concept no longer has its own word. Sometimes people see that as dismissive and take it personally.

I think the bigger problem is that so many of our most important words describe abstract concepts with fuzzy meanings and multiple subtly overlapping meanings. It makes it hard to avoid equivocation, even when you try. Often words have connotations that vary greatly from person to person. Then there are the idiomatic usages.:help:

It is tough to communicate with language, but it is all we've got.

Tom

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is there some evolutionary reason for this commonplace chauvinism?

Is there evidence warranting the characterization: "commonplace chauvinism"?

 

[Straw Dog]

Words... words... words...

It is tough to communicate with language, but it is all we've got.

Non-verbal communication and presence is under-estimated. Also, clear and plain words rooted in the context of direct experience tend to be more effective than too much reliance on vague, dreamy, and overly abstract conceptual meanings.

 

[Sunstone]

Is there evidence warranting the characterization: "commonplace chauvinism"?

It's just my impression that many of us -- self included at times -- tend to assert our own favored meanings for words as if they were the only proper and true meanings of those words. I am unaware of any science that backs up my impression -- or refutes it.

 

[columbus]

Words... words... words...



Non-verbal communication and presence is under-estimated. Also, clear and plain words rooted in the context of direct experience tend to be more effective than too much reliance on vague, dreamy, and overly abstract conceptual meanings.

Heh
Then there are the tacit assumptions. I was thinking of the internet.

Tom

 

[ChristineES]

Most words in the English Language have more than one meaning. Yet, many of us -- perhaps even most of us -- tend to favor one or two meaning(s) for a word over others. And we might even argue to the death that the only proper meaning for a word is the one we ourselves give it.

So, what's going on there? Why is it so often important to us to assert that a word has only the meaning we ourselves favor for it? Is there some evolutionary reason for this commonplace chauvinism? Does it stem from a lack of education? Intelligence? Or is there some other cause involved?

What do you think?

It's pride, I think. No one seems to ever want to be wrong about anything. Some people erroneously believe that if they are right, then the other person must be wrong; in this case, that a word can't have more than 2 or 3 meanings.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's just my impression that many of us -- self included at times -- tend to assert our own favored meanings for words as if they were the only proper and true meanings of those words. I am unaware of any science that backs up my impression -- or refutes it.

It is good to see that you've risen above commonplace chauvinism in defense of the attribution of commonplace chauvinism. I suspect that this is, in your case, normative behavior. You seem to be left with one of two options: you can assert your general superiority to others or you can acknowledge that the OP overreaches.

 

[Revoltingest]

One fundamental truth about werds:
When people are friendly & agreeable, they share definitions.
When rancorous & disagreeing, the definitions will differ.
Sometimes the latter causes the former, & sometimes the former exacerbates the latter.

 

[Sunstone]

It is good to see that you've risen above commonplace chauvinism in defense of the attribution of commonplace chauvinism. I suspect that this is, in your case, normative behavior. You seem to be left with one of two options: you can assert your general superiority to others or you can acknowledge that the OP overreaches.

Such contemptible manipulation deserves no response beyond the rejection of it.