Marklar
If a word can have as many meanings as we assign to it. Can was assign every meaning to one word?
Submitted 4 weeks ago by Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world to [deleted]
Comments
yukichigai@lemmy.sdf.org 4 weeks ago
Asafum@feddit.nl 4 weeks ago
bcgm3@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
Marklar yea, marklar.
over_clox@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
NegativeLookBehind@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
The the the the the, the the the the the the the the; the the the the the the.
Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
kinttach@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 4 weeks 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.
StrawberryPigtails@lemmy.sdf.org 4 weeks ago
You’ve certainly shown the diversity of the word.
Omgpwnies@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
mother-motherfuck
mother-motherfuck-fuck
motherfuck, motherfuck,
Noinch noinch noinch.
circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 4 weeks 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 4 weeks 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 4 weeks 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).
GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Professional academic linguist
🧐
circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 4 weeks ago
It means I’m not a translator and I don’t work on one particular language.
BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
Gary, Gary… Gary?
lousyd@lemmy.sdf.org 4 weeks ago
Alas, yes.
SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
skibidi
Skydancer@pawb.social 4 weeks ago
ICastFist@programming.dev 4 weeks ago
Theoretically, yes. In practice, no. Suppose
blabecomes a everything word. If anyone asks whatblameans, you say it meansbla. The other person won’t understand, you persist onbla bla blameaningbla means bla, by which bla can mean anythingand you realize that it just doesn’t work, because if it “means anything”, in reality it means nothing.urda@lebowski.social 4 weeks ago
You sure as squantch can!
Brodysseus@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Came here looking for this
GroundedGator@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
My squantch in squantch you can’t squantch that in public.
dan1101@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
ACK! ACK ACK ACK ACK. ACK ACK.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 4 weeks ago
He comes in peace!
RunOnSmoothFrozenIce@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Ook.
M137@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Than*
yesman@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
The simple answer to your question is no. Language is as much about distinction and exclusion as it is about description. The word “circle” stands for the description and properties of the circle, but would be incoherent if it did not also exclude straight lines.
You can often find examples where some things are considered premium or desirable not for the properties is has, but for what it lacks. Just think of all the products marketed to not have something like BPA, fat, sugar, Carbs, gluten, asbestos, lead, and even cruelty.
Contramuffin@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Let me introduce you to Goptjaam, probably the closest “language” that fits what you mean: youtu.be/ze5i_e_ryTk
Gremour@lemmy.world 4 weeks 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 4 weeks 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.
RobotToaster@mander.xyz 4 weeks ago
fnord
Kolanaki@yiffit.net 4 weeks ago
That’s what the word “aught” means. Literally “anything at all.”
skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks 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 4 weeks ago
every time I see a transplant refer to an animate object as jawn they get mocked raucously by the phillyborn
Kingofthezyx@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
Or “da kine” in Hawaiian pidgin.
xmunk@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
I aught aught that aught I?
dnick@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
Yes
Sanctus@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I thought we did this with buffalo
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 4 weeks ago
Hoogla!
spittingimage@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Siegfried@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Yes yes, yes yes yes. Yes, yes yes yes yes, yes yes yes!
sailormoon@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 4 weeks ago
Yeah here and AskLemmy get so many replies I’ve sadly had to abandon a few posts due to the sheer number of replies. I really like to reply to everybody that takes the time to comment but in swear I’ve had posts with 400+ comments and I feel overwhelmed.
Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Im just glad I really didn’t need an answer for this one and have just been enjoying reading the replies.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
Smurf yeah we can.
mipadaitu@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Smurfing hell… I thought I was going to be the smartass in this thread.