If words do not have definitions, what is a definition, and how do we proceed to explore questions about definitions? Are we confusing definitions with meanings or concepts, as they can potentially vary, in different contexts? Moreover, are the validity of definitions, relative to the above article, dependent upon a specific field or subject of concern? Do mathematical definitions fall under the same scrutiny? Why is it that if I learn a definition, my comprehension and ability to understand that word in various contexts increase? Is the article referring to all words or certain words? Is the article referring to linguistic theories that have little to do with my ability to understand what I read or write, or to arcane concepts, best suited to philosophical speculation. If words do not have definitions, in terms of their meaning, what do they have? How does one proceed to question whether or not words have definitions without firstly explaining precisely what a definition is? I believe there is a hierarchy to meaning, understanding and definitions, respectively, that must be clarified before attempting to question the validity, as to whether words have definitions. If words do not have definitions, how is it possible to communicate? If communication and mutual understanding are possible, what exactly makes that possible, if not agreement as to what words mean; in short, defined terms. Beyond any question, words have definitions, in the ordinary sense!!! The sense that word do not have definitions fall within the realm of arcane science, and are a subject suitable to linguistic journals. Otherwise, I suspect, we are "sawing the air", and creating a seemingly worthy argument for discussion.