Why the dictionary doesn't settle arguments about what words mean

[nancylebov]

"All words have not a single meaning but a swarm of them, like bees around a hive. And like that swarm, changing its position ever-so-slightly with each wingbeat, the word's meanings change a little with each use upon the tongue or the page." -- Maureen O'Brien

Link

Comments

[cloudhurler.livejournal.com]

A somewhat relevant journal entry from a few years previous:

There is magic in words -- they have such power. We can make others cry, laugh, coo, leave, moue, grieve -- all with an utterance. And yet, semiotics tells us that all is an arbitrary sign or symbol -- a world of accrued referentially. The written word endures -- in that sense it is concrete; however, by time that our eyes scan it the meaning has shifted. It may be slight or it may be lightyears away from what it once meant. Examples: "silly" once meant "holy," "pumpkin" was 19th century slang for "pussy," and when Shakespeare spoke of "politicians" he was actually condemning the Franciscan Order. In that sense, the concrete word is also abstract. An abstract concrete construct that is arbitrarily designated for one function, but can only fulfill that function through referencing like constructs. It is amazing that we can understand one another at all.