On Sun, 4 Aug 2002, Katrina wrote:

> >The claim that words mean nothing but what speakers intend to
> >mean by them is dead wrong.  People sometimes fail to say what
> >they mean.
>
> Are you saying that words have an objective meaning?  Why is it then that
> two dictionaries can't even agree on a word definition?  What about the
> fact that definitions can get altered every year?

Of course words have objective meanings.  They would be useless
if they didn't. To say that meanings are objective is only to say
that they are external to the intention of the speaker.  They
*don't* mean just whatever the speaker wants them to mean.

Definitions are not meanings.  They are descriptions of meanings,
and there's more than one way to describe meaning.  Furthermore,
there are regional variations in meanings, and meanings are also
subject to change.  None of this keeps them from being objective.
The weather is objective, but it changes from hour to hour, and
from location to location.

Again, the simple proof of this is that people sometimes fail to
say what they mean.  If words meant only what people intend to
mean by them, this would be logically impossible.  If what you
want is to get paid, but instead you say "I want to get laid,"
the word "laid" does not suddenly mean "paid."  It continues to
mean what it meant before (one of its meanings).  You simply said
something other than what you meant.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]