Words are used to to indicate differences or similarities, which their definitions describe (justify in detail). Like someone given the same name as their father for instance, needs to be called junior or given a nickname, in order not to be confused with their parent (ego insanity based on low self-esteem as the sane are logical and want order and sense in their world, not confusion).
As science has chased down the smallest forms of existence and life in the universe (as well as the largest) - linguistics and philosophy have attacked the same mental (abstract) forms in the subjective world, to further define this kind of internal reality.
__________________ 'Are you pondering what I'm pondering?' (Pinky & The Brain)
Language is a problem for scientists. Because the idea is precision, and accuracy of observation (the act), this means that understanding of what is, in fact, being 'looked for', and how too 'see' it, are crucial to whatever methods are used.
A scientist needs a bag of precision tools; ones which he is confident will prepare him with something with which he can do his job reliably; language, something everyone else (who may not be as concerned about their toolkit) uses, must be prepared similarly: jargon and terminology appear, and a model, an idea of the necessary work involved to make an observation, is easier to construct for the practitioners of any method.
Any technological or research endeavour is itself "prepared by" the tools of science, of course. A bit like say, a tradesman being prepared by preparing or sharpening his tools properly, or something.
One big problem is the way we constantly substitute nouns for verbs, or actions for the products of those actions (English, in particular, is chock-full of such terms). Even the word "action" is used to mean some work or cycle, and also to mean its result, i.e. the thing it produces. Even when talking Math.
Words are hooks to hang meanings on. This can be so even when they are used poetically, i.e. when the sounds and rhythms of the words may convey a significant part of the overall meaning.
Another use, and therefore a putative purpose for words, is to entertain.
What about words in a language other than English -but 'close', in the sense it isn't Chinese or Arabic or Sanskrit.
I.e. a Roman alphabet. French, Spanish, Italian, Roma, then us, with all that Saxon gibberish tacked on to the Romano-Brit language spoken during the occupation of Britain, that became ye Olde-Englysshe.
So do you get anything from stuff in French, or Latin, say -even if you don't really understand what it says.
What about words in a language other than English -but 'close', in the sense it isn't Chinese or Arabic or Sanskrit.
A good question, but I'm not sure it makes any difference. The purpose is dependent on the intent of the person speaking or writing the words. I would suggest that whether a given listener or reader is able to comprehend the words does not change the intent.
However, that does make me think of a possible additional use for words, beyond communicating meaning and giving enjoyment: to deliberately obfuscate or confuse. But, is that a separate purpose? Is it merely an attempt to communicate a false meaning instead of a true one? Hmm, I'm not sure.
Words can also be used simply to fill time. E.g. Deliberately talking at length with the purpose of preventing a matter coming to a decision, or to prevent another matter being discussed. This is debating device used in the British parliament (and elsewhere).
What I was getting at was the idea of "fuzzy" information, typified by seeing something written in a language that developed from the same geological background, as the one you learned to speak natively, like English v French; there are plenty of Norman French words in the language we're all using here.
And the way a Frenchman can make himself understood to an Italian or Spaniard, etc.
So the idea is we're all using slightly varying 'sememes', based on slight background differences (culture and so on), and so individual 'copies' of any message, or how to 'frame' it.
So the idea is we're all using slightly varying 'sememes', based on slight background differences (culture and so on), and so individual 'copies' of any message, or how to 'frame' it.
I'd agree this is so, but how does that relate to the purpose of words?
Words use an alphabet (algebra), so the words themselves (and their pronunciation, which isn't 'available' here), are polymorphic functions of an alphabet.
