Reply to comment

Re:Levbor. I appreciate your response. I find it fair and well thought out. I enjoy this dialog. I find it difficult to "fault" your reasoning. Finding fault is not my goal, expanding my understanding of this difficult subject through serious and thoughtful dialog is. I reaffirm that formal language, and the disciplines that depend upon the uniform agreement of such language, and by extension, exact definitions are critical, in order to communicate effectively and efficiently, and achieve certain result. Common word usage can rise to the same level of understanding and agreement. As you have pointedly demonstrated, sometimes it does not. Yet I am persuaded that formal language; language that is well defined, is primary; in general, and necessary; specifically, to evaluate the "place", and significance of words and language in common usage. I would suggest that what is at issue herein is how understanding derived from experience; everyday experience and personal interactions, and how language is derived and understood from that scenario, bodes with, if you will, definitional language, found in various dictionaries, and codified, in grammar studies and language usage books. We are dealing with two "systems" that are far from compatible. The chair example demonstrates a cognitive gap that can only be fill with the evolution of language usage. The mere fact that an object does not fit well within a definition, does not prove that the primary definition is incorrect. This fact simply indicates the need to refine or extend, if not alter the definition. Language usage and the definitions therein are subject to an evolutionary process, according to usage and agreement. It is of necessity an imperfect process. But standards are necessary if we hope to maintain a high degree of consistency and mutual understanding. Again, formal language is not without limits, yet if we allow common usage alone to dictate the standard by which words are understood, I would suggest that chaos would result. This is precisely why I maintain that definitions are primary. Not absolute, occasionally in need of modifying, or updating, none the less, the primary reference for understanding, and communicating.