Quote:
Originally Posted by coberst
Is it possible for the word, i.e. language, to come before the meaning?
|
It is true that there is no meaning in the natural world. It just is. Meaning is an abstraction, a conceptualisation, made by sentient beings. The question of whether language precedes meaning is difficult. Language is pointless without meaning, so therefore, presumably, one must have something meaningful to express to spur the original generation of a language in which to express it. E.g. "ug" may have meant "hello", "welcome", "nice to see you" (or whatever) and "ug ug ug" may have meant "danger" (or some such). The meaning was conveyed principally by the inflection of the voice, rather than the word used (which was just a grunt). Then gradually specific sounds became associated with specific meanings, and then those sounds became words which could be used together to convey more complex meanings.
But once a language exists, a new meaning may often be expressed in old words. Indeed that seems to be essential. Communication relies on a common understanding of the words. Therefore if new ideas could not be expressed in existing words, how would we communicate them?
I have had direct experience of this. I have formulated a new concept of space-time. When I try to express it very few, if any, people understand what I'm saying (as far as I can tell). I think that this is because they do not associate the words I use with the meanings I intend. But the meanings I intend
cannot be conveyed using the meanings that they currently associate with the words. Therefore I'm reduced to using mataphor to hint at the meaning I intend. It does not work very well.
