What happens when we call something a name? Why should we call a mighty big black animal 'an elephant'? When an elephant comes to attack the village, the first man who saw it can run in panic shouting aloud: "Elephant, elephant". It is very difficult to use something like 'a mighty big black animal' in this particular situation.
So the single word 'elephant' is equivalent to the group 'mighty big black animal'. If there are other mighty big black animals other than elephants here, then we can add a few words into this group and make them equivalent again. For example, to differentiate it from rhinos, we may add 'with big ears' to the group.
This is exactly what a dictionary does. It gives you groups of words equivalent to every word in it. Each word is supported by a group of other words. Each word in a group is supported by other groups of words, that is the next level. This chain goes on. That means a word, say 'black', supports another word, say 'elephant', with the help of other words. And at the same time the word 'black' is being supported by another group of words. There is no particular direction of this support. For example, as 'black' supports 'elephant', 'elephant' can support 'black' too. This gives us the image of language being a network, with each word being a node and support being the connection between two nodes.
But is it true that beyond the particular group which supports a word, the word has no identity? That a word cannot stand in isolation, in vacuum? Imagine of a word which needs no support but can support others. If it is not being supported by any words but it supports some words, then the words it supports can be used to support it. That is the result of the fact that there is no particular direction to this support. The same fact rules out the possibility of a word which gets support from some words but does not support even a single word. That means if a word has to stand alone, it should not be supported by any other word, as well as it should not support any other word.
Can such a word exist? I don't think so. Suppose we made up such a word, say, 'xeird'. Someone will ask you: "What is xeird?" You will answer: "It is the word which stands alone." At that very moment the word xeird has lost its aura. Because you have supported xeird with the group of words:'it, is, the, word, which, stands and alone.
You can keep xeird alive at least for a longer time this way: keep silence to every query related to xeird. Problem with this method is that when you keep on silence to continued queries from a lot of people, they will themselves kill xeird this way: "Xeird is the word to which weird people keep mum."
So what about creating your own xeird and keeping it just within you? Never utter it to anybody? You create a word and you make yourself believe that it has no associations with any other word, living or dead. I'm not sure of this idea being great too. The new word may hardly qualify for a word. A word is a part of language, I believe. And language happens between, at least, two individuals. That brings us to the idea that a word has no existence inside a single individual.
Now you go to your friend and conspire to mint out the standalone word. That only prolongs the life of the special word a little more longer; till one of you dies. After it, even if the other is still alive, by the reason that you need one more individual to communicate it, the word is also dead. You both cannot preserve it for ever. You will need the support of other words to preserve it. That will only shorten the lifespan of the word.
What about creating a larger group of people? The singular word will be transferred from one generation to the next so that it lives as long as the group exists. But again the word will need the support of other words to be conveyed to the individuals who were not present at the time the word was first created. So this also is not practical.
This point should have come at the first place: what is the purpose of creating such a word? Even if all the above barriers can be overcome, who will spend time and resources for such a ridiculous thing ? Is it that ridiculous? I don't know.
So the single word 'elephant' is equivalent to the group 'mighty big black animal'. If there are other mighty big black animals other than elephants here, then we can add a few words into this group and make them equivalent again. For example, to differentiate it from rhinos, we may add 'with big ears' to the group.
This is exactly what a dictionary does. It gives you groups of words equivalent to every word in it. Each word is supported by a group of other words. Each word in a group is supported by other groups of words, that is the next level. This chain goes on. That means a word, say 'black', supports another word, say 'elephant', with the help of other words. And at the same time the word 'black' is being supported by another group of words. There is no particular direction of this support. For example, as 'black' supports 'elephant', 'elephant' can support 'black' too. This gives us the image of language being a network, with each word being a node and support being the connection between two nodes.
But is it true that beyond the particular group which supports a word, the word has no identity? That a word cannot stand in isolation, in vacuum? Imagine of a word which needs no support but can support others. If it is not being supported by any words but it supports some words, then the words it supports can be used to support it. That is the result of the fact that there is no particular direction to this support. The same fact rules out the possibility of a word which gets support from some words but does not support even a single word. That means if a word has to stand alone, it should not be supported by any other word, as well as it should not support any other word.
Can such a word exist? I don't think so. Suppose we made up such a word, say, 'xeird'. Someone will ask you: "What is xeird?" You will answer: "It is the word which stands alone." At that very moment the word xeird has lost its aura. Because you have supported xeird with the group of words:'it, is, the, word, which, stands and alone.
You can keep xeird alive at least for a longer time this way: keep silence to every query related to xeird. Problem with this method is that when you keep on silence to continued queries from a lot of people, they will themselves kill xeird this way: "Xeird is the word to which weird people keep mum."
So what about creating your own xeird and keeping it just within you? Never utter it to anybody? You create a word and you make yourself believe that it has no associations with any other word, living or dead. I'm not sure of this idea being great too. The new word may hardly qualify for a word. A word is a part of language, I believe. And language happens between, at least, two individuals. That brings us to the idea that a word has no existence inside a single individual.
Now you go to your friend and conspire to mint out the standalone word. That only prolongs the life of the special word a little more longer; till one of you dies. After it, even if the other is still alive, by the reason that you need one more individual to communicate it, the word is also dead. You both cannot preserve it for ever. You will need the support of other words to preserve it. That will only shorten the lifespan of the word.
What about creating a larger group of people? The singular word will be transferred from one generation to the next so that it lives as long as the group exists. But again the word will need the support of other words to be conveyed to the individuals who were not present at the time the word was first created. So this also is not practical.
This point should have come at the first place: what is the purpose of creating such a word? Even if all the above barriers can be overcome, who will spend time and resources for such a ridiculous thing ? Is it that ridiculous? I don't know.
No comments:
Post a Comment