Marklar
If a word can have as many meanings as we assign to it. Can was assign every meaning to one word?
Submitted 17 hours ago by Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world to [deleted]
Comments
yukichigai@lemmy.sdf.org 16 hours ago
TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 6 hours ago
Marklar yea, marklar.
Asafum@feddit.nl 15 hours ago
circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 8 hours ago
Professional academic linguist here. (Yes, that’s a thing.)
Words have the meanings that communities apply to them. There is no governing body over word meanings. There can be a tension (e.g. two groups using the same term in different ways), but that doesn’t really mean that the word means both. Words mean different things to different groups. It has to be this way, for epistemic and pragmatic reasons.
In that sense, meanings are not consciously assigned. So the answer to your original question could be “no”.
But in another sense, all meanings are possible for any given meaningful sequence around the world. Which means, in principle, given infinite communities of practice, a word could have infinite meanings. A stretch, of course.
milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 7 hours ago
Or, to put it another way, (unprofessional academic linguist here), a word has meanings by what you mean by it, and what the listener understands it to mean.
In a sense, it can mean anything you want it to. In another sense, it can mean anything the listener/reader interprets it as. Most useful though is when you mean the same meaning that the listener understands.
And for “accepted/official meaning”, that’s just a community all agreeing on a meaning. Optionally with a recognised group (e.g. dictionary writer) affirming certain meanings as accepted in the community.
circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 7 hours ago
I think you’re getting at intended meaning versus received meaning. Which is totally a thing, but intended meaning is far less well understood than accepted meaning (not necessarily at the word level, but definitely at the sentence level).
At the sentence level, companies pay big money to have tens of thousands of sentences manually annotated for intended meaning (to try and train AI to be able to discern it automatically).
over_clox@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Contramuffin@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
Let me introduce you to Goptjaam, probably the closest “language” that fits what you mean: youtu.be/ze5i_e_ryTk
NegativeLookBehind@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
The the the the the, the the the the the the the the; the the the the the the.
Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
kinttach@lemm.ee 15 hours ago
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
StrawberryPigtails@lemmy.sdf.org 15 hours ago
You’ve certainly shown the diversity of the word.
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 13 hours ago
I saw a mechanic throw down a wrench and shout “the fuck-fucking fucker’s fucking fucked AGAIN” and we all knew the deadline needed a push.
BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 16 hours ago
Gary, Gary… Gary?
SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
skibidi
lousyd@lemmy.sdf.org 16 hours ago
Alas, yes.
RunOnSmoothFrozenIce@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Ook.
dan1101@lemm.ee 11 hours ago
ACK! ACK ACK ACK ACK. ACK ACK.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 10 hours ago
He comes in peace!
urda@lebowski.social 11 hours ago
You sure as squantch can!
Gremour@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
There’s a sci-fi movie from USSR, “Kin-dza-dza”. The natives of another planet in another galaxy were telepathes, but used language consisting of only a few words. “Koo” was for almost any word, “kiu” for swearing, “ketse” for marches (most valuable asset) and a few more. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin-dza-dza!
lvxferre@mander.xyz 15 hours ago
In theory, yes. In practice, no.
To assign a meaning to a word is a social matter. You’d need to have more than just one person accepting that that word conveys that meaning.
Kolanaki@yiffit.net 16 hours ago
That’s what the word “aught” means. Literally “anything at all.”
skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 16 hours ago
That’s “jawn” in Philly. It can stand in for literally any object. “These jawns are expensive” “Make a left at the jawn” “Jawn said he ain’t coming” “This jawn is packed”
janus2@lemmy.zip 14 hours ago
every time I see a transplant refer to an animate object as jawn they get mocked raucously by the phillyborn
xmunk@sh.itjust.works 16 hours ago
I aught aught that aught I?
RobotToaster@mander.xyz 15 hours ago
fnord
Sanctus@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
I thought we did this with buffalo
spittingimage@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
TheRealShadeSlimmy@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Mother fuck.
theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
I mean, I don’t think it’s very likely that you could get a critical mass of people to go along with it
radix@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 16 hours ago
Smurf yeah we can.