>If no people ever existed, there would be no words, so what could
>it mean to ask whether they would still have meanings.

It's a hypothetical question, I'm sure you're familiar with those.

>   You might
>as well ask whether, if no people existed, they would still need
>to eat.

False analogy.

>   The need to eat and the meanings of words both
>presuppose the existence of people, but this doesn't make them
>subjective.

In order to exist as something objective, they have to be outside of the
human mind.  Words do not exist outside of the human mind.  It's just ink
on paper.  The ink is real.  The paper is real.  I can pick up either of
these things.  Can you pick up a word?  The word is an interpretation of
the pattern formed by the ink in the mind.

> > Words can only mean what the speaker intends.  I'm sure the first person
> > who said "Hey man, you're cool" knew exactly what he meant.
>
>No doubt, but we're not talking about what he meant.  We're
>talking about what words mean.

When he said it, the meaning changed.  He may have had to explain it, but
that's how all word meanings get created.  All of us now use the word
'cool' to mean excellent, or hip and trendy, or some similar meaning.  I
never understood the term Paleo Diet until Ray explained it to me.

>Words don't even exist?  Then what are these things you're
>reading?

I am looking at dots on a screen and interpreting them.

>They make a kind of mistake that would be impossible if your
>claim, that words mean whatever speakers intend them to mean,
>were true.

Nope.  This is one of the ways that words change their
meaning.  Inflammable now means flammable.  Peruse no longer means to read
and study in detail, it means to skip over quickly.  Insure and ensure
often are interchanged.  Affect and effect are also interchanged.  etc.

>That's right.  You'd figure out what he meant.  And you'd have to
>figure it out because it's not what he said.

I always have to figure out what people mean, even when they use the
so-called right words.

>If your view were true, there would be no such thing as "wrong
>words."

I call them wrong because she deliberately picks a similar sounding or
meaning word to be cute.  In fact, I know what she means, so they're not
really wrong.  For example, she will say "That's the best thing since two
pieces of toast" instead of "That's the best thing since sliced bread (or
white bread)".

>That's true but it doesn't show that
>the meanings of words have suddenly changed.

What about gay?  That meaning suddenly changed one day when somebody
noticed that homosexuals tend to be more gay than straight people.  Same
goes for cool, shag, puff, fag, etc.

A television broadcast can also immediately change the meaning of a word.

You know, all this started because Ken disagreed with my definition of the
word cure.  It is kinda off-topic.  I'll agree to drop the subject if you will?

Kat.