There's no sense in arguing over definitions just as there's no justice in arguing over words.
People use words in different ways.
So when you communicate with people, that keyword communicate, there has to be understanding of what is being said.
Simple enough right.
What happens often times is misunderstanding by assumption of what the other means by a word.
When you don't have a clear understanding, ask for it. Ask "what do you mean by that term?"
We don't get into "well you're using the wrong term or you have the incorrect definition".
We don't debate over terms and definitions because the point of words and definitions are for the use of communicating and relaying messages.
Now when contradictions are spotted with the use of the terms by the same individual, that can be pointed out and countered.
The importance of stating definitions as an introduction in a debate is to set the goalpost and foundation of an individual's position.
This isn't to be contested . There is no arguing on what the definition should be . There is no redefining it to fit the opposing side's case .
Definitions are not up for debate. Contradictions can be pointed out or definitions can be corrected according to a dictionary. This means if I say such and such dictionary says this, you verify that it does not, hence the correction. That's the end of that.
Now that we're on the subject of dictionaries, they are not the sources of the meaning of words.
The source is that which something comes from. Where do words come from?
Dictionaries. No. Encyclopedias. No
From the language, audible language from the tongue. The people.
This means the very first native tongue used to communicate to another uttered a language made up by words , sentences, phrases, jargons along with verbal gestures.
This communicated reality, what was occuring in it and the world around one person conveying it to another. Dialogue is conveying the life and energy of the world around two persons or more .
This world, reality through a system of whatever means has been processed with a series of labels and identifiers.
Everything that has a name to be identified is done so via language to communicate references to specific and distinct objects.
To further communicate , expand and expound the identity of things, more words are put together which are basically definitions.
So language and all terms are socially derived.
Socially woven into societal constructed fabric.
The time when recording came along with the advent of writing, the languages were written and documented.
Society grows and continues record and documentation as the language expands. But where do these documents and records acquire the information?
I think I just laid it all out . The document which is nominally the dictionary today references the use of a word commonly among the users themselves. In some, I can't say all but in some what is also recorded are the idiosyncrasies.
Now because it's recorded, does it then become a valid word? No.
It had to exist in a valid state first before being printed . Remember what I just laid out.
Does it become valid because of majority consensus?
No. Dictionaries can have uncommon usages as well.
When someone says "that's not a word", then what is it?
Is it letters tied together?
Yes. Well that's what a word is.
What really is the case is a person uses a word, constructs a word as it was done from the foundation but it has not been reported or recorded officially.
Why is a word valid as soon as it exists or made up by the user?
It's because it meets the validating or correct parameters of what a word is and is meant for.
A word is made up of letters to convey a message or some sort of communication. An array of words make up a definition to further in-depth communicate a single word.
This is all the extent of what a conversation, a dialogue, even a monologue delivers.
Speaking back to the consensus. An agreement on a definition doesn't make the definition valid.
Why?
The definition simply is already valid before an existing agreement of multiple individuals .
Then it becomes arbitrary. What are we going to do?
Play the numbers game and see which number beats out who last for validity, no .
That is not the foundation for validity. It is not the criteria for where validity begins.
I understand why people argue definitions and cite a dictionary publication against another.
People believe it starts with a dictionary. It starts with consensus or a majority or common use. It's popular, it's much might so it must be right. No again.
This is not the source. People in error hold it as the source of language. Therefore it is held as "be all end all". No . Over and over ,no. Wrong.
The source exists outside of the dictionary. The source existed before the book did. The foundation of language was founded first in order to put into the book. Persons are the origins of language.
I'll stop there. I've beaten this in enough about where the validity starts.
