The problem with your with your theory here is it’s entirely based on the person trying to communicate the idea. You leave absolutely no responsibility to the listener/reader. They have to have an open mind and pay attention and be ready to learn. They also have to actually read the words as they are written. In other words they can’t be so half cocked that they just assume they know what something means before they actually read it. Once they’ve done that they’ve betrayed their responsibility as the reader/listener.
In short you read it wrong. That’s on you. You didn’t try to interpret it critically, or not even critically really just basically, you just assumed you knew what it meant. Now you’re having a hissy fit because you are wrong and don’t want to admit it. You want things handed to you with no effort on your part. Codling.
That seems to be the main point we disagree on. This conversation won’t go anywhere until there’s a consensus on this. To me, the goal of language (and the words that compose that language) is to optimize transfer of information. In colloquial conversations and news headlines, we optimize for the rate of information transfer. In more formal settings like academia or legalese, we optimize for minimal ambiguity at the expense of the rate.
The problem with your with your theory here is it’s entirely based on the person trying to communicate the idea. You leave absolutely no responsibility to the listener/reader. They have to have an open mind and pay attention and be ready to learn. They also have to actually read the words as they are written. In other words they can’t be so half cocked that they just assume they know what something means before they actually read it. Once they’ve done that they’ve betrayed their responsibility as the reader/listener.
In short you read it wrong. That’s on you. You didn’t try to interpret it critically, or not even critically really just basically, you just assumed you knew what it meant. Now you’re having a hissy fit because you are wrong and don’t want to admit it. You want things handed to you with no effort on your part. Codling.
Where do the meaning of words come from?
What you need more hand holding Socrates?
That seems to be the main point we disagree on. This conversation won’t go anywhere until there’s a consensus on this. To me, the goal of language (and the words that compose that language) is to optimize transfer of information. In colloquial conversations and news headlines, we optimize for the rate of information transfer. In more formal settings like academia or legalese, we optimize for minimal ambiguity at the expense of the rate.
This is a lot of syllables to say “words should mean things.” You’ve somehow turned “communication should be clear” into a peer-reviewed discovery.