So what happens if you don't know my intent and choice of definition when I use a multi-definition word? Does that not put you in a potentially vulnerable position? Especially if my goal is to take advantage of you in some way?
What if you presume one definition, but I was using a different one? Could that cause us problems?
And worse yet, what if I use a multi-definition word and presume you interpret it the way I intend, but in fact you interpret a different definition? That could be the cause for, not only confusion, but possibly harm or damage depending on the circumstances, right?
And still worse, what if you read a book written in 1900, 1800, 1700, 500, 100, 200 BC, etc. and don't know what a word meant then versus now? Has the concept/idea been properly conveyed to you? Will you draw incorrect conclusions? Will your understanding of the material be warped?
And I'm not even touching on incorrect translation and interpretation, sometimes unintended, but I contend more often purposefully performed to deceive the reader when and where it matters most.
On top of all this, as a linguist, you well know that there are not always perfect translations possible between languages, forcing the translator to make an approximation of what he/she believed was being said.
I could make you a long list of words from antiquity that meant one thing in days-gone-by, but now mean something almost unrecognizably different today. Biblical scripture is filled with numerous examples. The Buddhist word "Duhkha", still to this day is most commonly defined as "suffering" or "pain", which is an incredibly poor translation as compared to the far more accurate "dissatisfaction" - those definitions being world's apart really, rendering the word almost meaningless. And how about the words "meditation" or "yoga"? The meaning of each of these words has been so completely obliterated as to render both of these words virtually meaningless to 99% of the population. The popular definition of both today bears almost no resemblance to the actual meaning of each.
I could also make you a long list of words used within the legal system that pass for everyday ordinary words we all can agree on the definition of, but in fact those words mean something entirely different under the man-made legal system of "codes", "acts", and "statutes" (it's no accident this is what they're called). The trickery and deception is so pervasive, that not even most attorneys understand what is going on.
What if those responsible for changing, deliberately mistranslating, watering-down or obfuscating the true meaning of words had nefarious intent? Could they effectively deceive, gaslight and propagandize entire populations?
With the use of multi-definition words, I can deceive the masses in almost unimaginable ways. And this is precisely what has been done to enslave humanity.
The pen is INFINITELY mightier than the sword.
Still sound "pretty whack" to you?
So what happens if you don't know my intent and choice of definition when I use a multi-definition word? Does that not put you in a potentially vulnerable position? Especially if my goal is to take advantage of you in some way?
What if you presume one definition, but I was using a different one? Could that cause us problems?
And worse yet, what if I use a multi-definition word and presume you interpret it the way I intend, but in fact you interpret a different definition? That could be the cause for, not only confusion, but possibly harm or damage depending on the circumstances, right?
And still worse, what if you read a book written in 1900, 1800, 1700, 500, 100, 200 BC, etc. and don't know what a word meant then versus now? Has the concept/idea been properly conveyed to you? Will you draw incorrect conclusions? Will your understanding of the material be warped?
And I'm not even touching on incorrect translation and interpretation, sometimes unintended, but I contend more often purposefully performed to deceive the reader when and where it matters most.
On top of all this, as a linguist, you well know that there are not always perfect translations possible between languages, forcing the translator to make an approximation of what he/she believed was being said.
I could make you a long list of words from antiquity that meant one thing in days-gone-by, but now mean something almost unrecognizably different today. Biblical scripture is filled with numerous examples. The Buddhist word "Dukha", still to this day is most commonly defined as "suffering" or "pain", which is an incredibly poor translation as compared to the far more accurate "dissatisfaction" - those definitions being world's apart really, rendering the word almost meaningless. And how about the words "meditation" or "yoga"? The meaning of each of these words has been so completely obliterated as to render both of these words virtually meaningless to 99% of the population. The popular definition of both today bears almost no resemblance to the actual meaning of each.
I could also make you a long list of words used within the legal system that pass for everyday ordinary words we all can agree on the definition of, but in fact those words mean something entirely different under the man-made legal system of "codes", "acts", and "statutes" (it's no accident this is what they're called). The trickery and deception is so pervasive, that not even most attorneys understand what is going on.
What if those responsible for changing, deliberately mistranslating, watering-down or obfuscating the true meaning of words had nefarious intent? Could they effectively deceive, gaslight and propagandize entire populations?
With the use of multi-definition words, I can deceive the masses in almost unimaginable ways. And this is precisely what has been done to enslave humanity.
The pen is INFINITELY mightier than the sword.
Still sound "pretty whack" to you?