As I learn what words “mean” I’ve come to understand that the meaning is often only shared in context. Many of us speak perfectly fine, however, knowing the sounds of the words without understanding makes the etymology of the words we speak obscure.
Agreed upon language tries to solve this problem and is a serious achievement of advanced civilizations, bringing with it many issues and debates. I believe that overall this can be a strong tool for understanding new words. And yet, I’ve learned there are limits to appreciating tools.
For one, we must establish together that the term “agreed upon language” describes a language that is consensual in that everyone agrees, and structural, in that everyone agrees to “one foundation” of syntax/spelling/symbols/systems ect… This agreement does change across time and geography.
Now, understand also, the scope of real language is so vast that it cannot be contained. What sounds we make are forevermoving phenomenon, and we humans try to capture something of it on matter. The tool is not the creating, and In this regard an agreed upon language will never be sufficient of even efficient at deciphering meaning in real language. In the realm of real speech and speaking, it is as if meaning is partially derived from from both the speaker and the listener. Words can spring up from anywhere and meaning can twist-in-half-backwards when spoke. Communication comes from trying to understand others, not from pointing to a dictionary or to MLA.
In as far as it is appropriate, agreed upon language is an important tool to the modern creative animal in this world. The agreed upon language holds people together, but it should never hold so tightly that you can’t understand a person in there full expression of speaking.
It should be said that you shouldn’t stab somebody for speaking stranger words either, especially if you disagree with them.