Basic Semiotics

[Age]

Also, and by the way, here, is another prime example of how and when these adult human beings would 'try' their very hardest to come across as though they were smart and/or intelligent, but in the actual process would just complicate 'that', which is, really, just pure simple, and actually simplicity in and of itself.

'These people', back when this was being written, had obtained beliefs and presumptions, which they dearly loved to hold onto, and in order to hold onto those beliefs and assumptions they would 'try to' find words, which they hoped would back up and support their beliefs and assumptions in some possible way.

And here we have a prime example of an arrogant forum member employing an indirect ad hominem.

Why do you believe, absolutely, that 'I' am 'an arrogant forum member', exactly?

Remember 'I' am the 'only one', here, who claims 'It' can back up and support what 'I' say and claim with irrefutable Facts, and proof. So, until 'I' am challenged by any of 'you', here, then any of 'you' 'trying to' claim that 'I' can not do what 'I' say and claim, here, is, actually, 'you' being 'the one with an exaggerated sense of your own importance or abilities'.

'These people' keep forgetting that just because they believed that 'I' could not back up and support my claims with irrefutable Facts, or proof, never ever means that 'I' can not. 'These ones' actually had a very exaggerated sense of their own abilities that they did not even 'try to' prove 'me' Wrong, and instead just believed 'I' was, and, laughingly, also believed that 'that' was all that was needed, here.

Also, LOL when did 'I' ever employ some so-called 'indirect ad hominem'?

And, to prove that it is 'this one' that is actually 'the one' being 'arrogant', here, let alone that if it does 'try to' provide an example of where and when it believes, absolutely, that 'I' have employed an 'indirect ad hominem', here, it will not listen nor see anything else that is written and said, here, in response. That is, it will just keep believing its own made up assumed story, here, and thus will not be open to anything else otherwise.

[Age]

But, can your own personal concepts be changed during this 'work in progress'? Or, is it only 'the others' who have to follow and abide by your own understand and explanations of what 'definitions' are, and until 'they' do agree with and accept your personal understanding, then 'they' will remain, well according to you, to 'struggle to understand what definitions are'?

I am open to correction, if that's what you're asking.

Great. Now, 'we' will 'see' if 'you', really, are open to correction, or not.

[Age]

Therefore, every symbol has always been meaningful.

What meaning did I assign to the word "xlkhowieur"?

I do not know if you did, or have not. And, until 'you' inform 'me' if you have, or not, then 'I' will never know, for sure, if you have, or not.

None. Therefore, it's meaningless.

But, why do you claim 'this', exactly?

Could I have 'I' already assigned 'meaning' to 'that word'?

If yes, and 'I' have, then is 'it' still meaningless?

if yes, then why, exactly?

The fact that I can now take that word and assign it a meaning won't make the above instance of that word meaningful.

What do you mean by 'above instance of that word', exactly?

Are you referring to the 'above instance' of 'that word' when 'that word is, first, 'seen', 'written', or 'thought about'?

That instance of the word, written at that point in time, is forever meaningless.

To 'you', maybe.

That is, if 'you' choose to never assign any meaning to 'that word', then, 'to you', it may well forever meaningless. But, obviously, 'you' are not every one.

And, as 'I' have already pointed out, earlier, if one is going to create and/or present any symbol/s with absolutely no assigned meaning, at all, then 'that', in and of itself, is just actually useless and pointless.

Also, and so your quote of mine is not taken out of context, which you do on quite a number of occasions, was in reference to,
it might well just be the case that absolutely every symbol spoken and/or written has always be attached to some thing anyway. Therefore, every symbol has always been meaningful.

[Age]

Therefore, every symbol has always been meaningful.

What meaning did I assign to the word "xlkhowieur"?

I do not know if you did, or have not. And, until 'you' inform 'me' if you have, or not, then 'I' will never know, for sure, if you have, or not.

None. Therefore, it's meaningless.

But, why do you claim 'this', exactly?

Could I have 'I' already assigned 'meaning' to 'that word'?

If yes, and 'I' have, then is 'it' still meaningless?

if yes, then why, exactly?

The fact that I can now take that word and assign it a meaning won't make the above instance of that word meaningful.

What do you mean by 'above instance of that word', exactly?

Are you referring to the 'above instance' of 'that word' when 'that word is, first, 'seen', 'written', or 'thought about'?

That instance of the word, written at that point in time, is forever meaningless.

To 'you', maybe.

That is, if 'you' choose to never assign any meaning to 'that word', then, 'to you', it may well forever meaningless. But, obviously, 'you' are not every one.

And, as 'I' have already pointed out, earlier, if one is going to create and/or present any symbol/s with absolutely no assigned meaning, at all, then 'that', in and of itself, is just actually useless and pointless.

Also, and so your quote of mine is not taken out of context, which you do on quite a number of occasions, was in reference to,
It might well just be the case that absolutely every symbol spoken and/or written has always been attached to some thing anyway.

And, which 'I' obviously never wrote, and thus never made clear,
If every symbol spoken and/or written has always been attached to some thing anyway, then,

Therefore, every symbol has always been meaningful.

[Magnus Anderson]

What do you mean by 'above instance of that word', exactly?

I am talking about the instance of the word used in the question, "What meaning did I assign to the word xlkhowieur?"

At that point in time, I assigned no meaning to it. As such, that particular instance of the word -- that particular use of it -- is meaningless. And it is so forever.

I may decide at some later point in time to make the word "xlkhowieur" meaningful. In that case, every subsequent use of the word, so as long as the meaning of the word is kept in place, will be meaningful. But every prior use will remain meaningless.

That is, if 'you' choose to never assign any meaning to 'that word', then, 'to you', it may well forever meaningless. But, obviously, 'you' are not every one.

And what everyone else does is irrelevant. They are not the ones deciding what my words mean and whether they are meaningful or meaningless.

If you're still unconvinced that meaningless words exist, consider that every symbol is meaningless until its user assigns a meaning to it, even if only for a very brief period of time. You first decide that you will use something as a symbol. At that point, the symbol is meaningless. Then you give a meaning to it. At that point, it becomes meaningful. The process isn't instantaneous.

If every word is a symbol, and if every sequence of more than 1 letter is a word, then most words are meaningless.

[Magnus Anderson]

Do you understand that words can have multiple instances and that each instance can have its own meaning?

If you utter the word "xlkhowieur" at point in time t1, that's one instance of that word.

If you utter it again at point in time t2, that's another instance.

If you utter it again at point in time t3, that's yet another instance.

These are 3 different instances of the same word uttered by the same person.

And each instance can have a different meaning.

The first can be meaningless.

The second can mean one thing.

The third can mean another thing.

Moreover, another person can utter the same word at the same time as you. Even though uttered at the same time, those would be two different instances of the word, each possibly having its own meaning.

[Impenitent]

each instance of a word may have a unique meaning according to its speaker

each instance of a word will likewise have a unique (possibly different) interpretation according to its reader

when does communication become impossible?

-Imp

[Age]

What do you mean by 'above instance of that word', exactly?

I am talking about the instance of the word used in the question, "What meaning did I assign to the word xlkhowieur?"

Again, is the word, 'instance', in relation to when 'that word' came into thought, was written, or when 'that word' was read? Or, something else?

At that point in time, I assigned no meaning to it. As such, that particular instance of the word -- that particular use of it -- is meaningless. And it is so forever.

Just repeating the exact same thing does not actual necessarily mean nor make some thing.

And, again, if 'I' give meaning to 'that word', then 'that word' does not remain meaningless forever more. As you claim 'that word' will remain.

I may decide at some later point in time to make the word "xlkhowieur" meaningful. In that case, every subsequent use of the word, so as long as the meaning of the word is kept in place, will be meaningful. But every prior use will remain meaningless.

But, and again, I could give 'that word' a meaning, and so it will have meaning, and thus not be meaningless. As you, again, 'try to' claim it is.

That is, if 'you' choose to never assign any meaning to 'that word', then, 'to you', it may well forever meaningless. But, obviously, 'you' are not every one.

And what everyone else does is irrelevant.

How could it be irrelevant if any one of those every ones attach meaning to 'that word'?

They are not the ones deciding what my words mean and whether they are meaningful or meaningless.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'my words'.

Who does 'this one' actually think or believe it is?

If you're still unconvinced that meaningless words exist, consider that every symbol is meaningless until its user assigns a meaning to it, even if only for a very brief period of time.

LOL Why did you even begin to assume what you have, here?

Doing so only shows and proves how you presume, before you clarify.

You first decide that you will use something as a symbol. At that point, the symbol is meaningless. Then you give a meaning to it. At that point, it becomes meaningful. The process isn't instantaneous.

you, really, have, still, not yet listened, here.

If every word is a symbol, and if every sequence of more than 1 letter is a word, then most words are meaningless.

Can just one letter be a word, to you?

Also, why do you claim that 'most words' are meaningless?

[Age]

Do you understand that words can have multiple instances and that each instance can have its own meaning?

What do you mean by words, themselves, can have multiple so-called 'instances'?

If you utter the word "xlkhowieur" at point in time t1, that's one instance of that word.

So, what you actually meant above is that words, themselves, do not have multiple instances, but rather that at multiple instances, words can have different meanings, correct?

If no, then why not, exactly?

But, if yes, then are you aware that at the exact same 'instances' words can have different meanings, and even exactly opposing meanings?

If you utter it again at point in time t2, that's another instance.

If you utter it again at point in time t3, that's yet another instance.

So, again, words, themselves, do not have different 'instances' but at 'different instances' words can have different meanings.

These are 3 different instances of the same word uttered by the same person.

And each instance can have a different meaning.

The first can be meaningless.

The second can mean one thing.

The third can mean another thing.

Moreover, another person can utter the same word at the same time as you. Even though uttered at the same time, those would be two different instances of the word, each possibly having its own meaning.

But, even yet again, words, themselves, can not have their own instances.

[Age]

each instance of a word may have a unique meaning according to its speaker

each instance of a word will likewise have a unique (possibly different) interpretation according to its reader

when does communication become impossible?

-Imp

Exactly 'when' you just described communication becomes or is miscommunication. Or, what some might call impossible.

But, when 'when' communication is what some might call, 'Truly possible', is 'when' every one within the discussion Truly and fully understands 'each other'.

Which, once more, never comes from presuming nor believing but just from seeking out clarification, instead.

[Magnus Anderson]

But, and again, I could give 'that word' a meaning, and so it will have meaning, and thus not be meaningless.

You can't really do that. You're not the author of that instance of the word. You did not write or utter it at that particular point in time.

In fact, even if you're the author of that instance of the word, you can't alter its meaning, because you would have to go back in time. You can't retroactively change the meaning of an uttered word. What you meant by an uttered word is what you meant by it at that point in time.

What you can do instead is assign a meaning to a new instance of that word.

[Impenitent]

are the best uttered words pasteurized?

-Imp

[Magnus Anderson]

3. FORMAL, PHYSICAL AND INTENDED WORDS

3.1 Instantiated words

An instantiated word ( = a word instance ) is a word used by someone at some point in time to communicate certain message. An instantiated word is usually instantiated by being spoken, written, printed or displayed.

If a person says or writes the same word 3 times, e.g. the word "cat", he will end up with 3 different instantiated words. For example, the word "cat" has 3 instances in the statement, "Cat is a cat is a cat."

Each instantiated word occupies a specific portion of spacetime. Two different instantiated words can occupy the same portion of time, but in that case, they must occupy different portions of space. Similarly, they can occupy the same portion of space, but in that case, they must occupy different portions of time.

Each instantiated word is used by someone -- its author.

And each instantiated word has its own meaning -- if any. Instantiated words cannot have more than 1 meaning.

There are two types of instantiated words: formal and physical.

3.2. Formal and physical words

Typically, the term "word" is used to denote the form of a symbol, rather than the symbol as a whole. The form of a word refers to the sequence of letters that constitutes it, regardless of its exact physical constitution. This is why the spoken word "cat" and the written word "cat" are considered to be qualitatively identical, even though their physical constitution is radically different ( one being a physical object occupying a portion of space at a single point in time, the other being a temporal entity, a process unfolding over time as air vibrations. )

The term formal word will be used to denote such words. A formal word is an instantiated sequence of letters independent from how that sequence is physically encoded. An example would be a sequence of letters C-A-T regardless of how it's physically encoded, i.e. whether it's written or spoken, how it's written or spoken, etc.

The term physical word will be used to denote the instantiated word as a whole -- the entire symbol -- not merely the sequence of letters that it contains. Such words, beside containing a sequence of letters, the formal word itself, also contain the entire physical makeup; in the case of written words, that would include things such as the exact shape of the letters, their size, the spacing between them, their colors and so on.

To illustrate my point, take a look at this image:

https://i.imgur.com/67HDq8O.png

The image shows two different instances of the word "cat".

The first instance is a formal word "cat", a sequence of letters "c", "a" and "t", embedded within a physical word displayed as a grid of pixels using Bitcount Grid Single Ink font.

The second instance is a formal word "cat" as well but this time embedded within a physical word displayed as a grid of pixels using IBM Plex Sans font.

The two formal words are qualitatively identical. However, the two physical words are qualitatively different ( different letter shapes, different colors, etc. )

3.3. Intended words

Intended words are words that live inside the minds of people who are planning to use them at some point, whether in speech, writing, or some other form of communication. They exist even if they are never instantiated.

Intended words can have multiple possible meanings, as commonly seen in dictionary entries. Each meaning represents a potential concept that may be assigned when the word is actually instantiated. When someone speaks or writes an intended word, they create an instantiated word and select one meaning from the intended word’s set of possible meanings.

[Magnus Anderson]

Also, why do you claim that 'most words' are meaningless?

The English alphabet has 26 letters.

If every word is 1 or more letters long, how many words is that?

That is 26 x ( 26 ^ inf - 1 ) / 25 where "inf" refers to the number of natural numbers.

In other words, the number is infinite.

Compare that to the number of English words used in practice.

[Magnus Anderson]

The average length of an English word is around 4.6 letters.

Let's say that the maximum number of letters in a word is 5.

That gives us around 12 million possible English words.

But in English language, there are less than 700,000 meaningful words.

So how many meaningless words is that?

More than 11 million.

Of course, I am talking about intended words here.