[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 20 KB, 500x500, zizek_2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4955753 No.4955753[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Would the "purest sense" of a word be where all of its meanings apply in one context?

>> No.4955769

NO.

>> No.4955781

How it most pertains to the present reality.

>> No.4955789

THE "PUREST SENSE" OF A WORD IS THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE WORD; A SENSE THAT ENCOMPASSES ALL THE POSSIBLE MEANINGS IS THE OPPOSITE OF PURE; IT WOULD BE THE "IMPUREST SENSE" OF A WORD.

>> No.4955791

>>4955789
a traditionalist

>> No.4955810

>>4955789
But after years of use it gains additional meanings, fulfilling its absolute potential until it falls into the category of "archaic". In a way this could be its most fulfilling sense.

>> No.4955812

Only speaker meaning exists.

>> No.4955829

>>4955812
Intended meaning exists because I know my intent.

>> No.4955833
File: 178 KB, 900x500, ZHIZHEK SUN.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4955833

>>4955810

THE TERM "PUREST SENSE" DOES NOT REFER TO THE WORD'S ULTIMATE FATE, OR "MOST FULFILLING SENSE"; IT REFERS TO THE WORD'S ESSENTIAL MEANING, HENCE "PURE".

>> No.4955837
File: 42 KB, 736x467, bruh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4955837

jesus christ shut the fuck up zizek

>> No.4955840

>>4955789
>>4955833
why do asians always talk in all caps?
It's not like they can shout with any substance, so why do it online?

>> No.4955850

>>4955833
My post implied that you thought a words purest sense was its best sense. Sorry I should have started it with "A words purest sense as you describe it is not necessarily its ideal sense"

>> No.4955851

>>4955829
>Intended meaning
What's the difference between that and speaker meaning?

>> No.4955852

>>4955833
>
A word doesn't have an "essential meaning". The word itself is arbitrary.

>> No.4955861

>>4955851
You cannot know a speakers intent; you only know your interpretation.

>> No.4955871
File: 11 KB, 100x100, AREIZOO 100x100.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4955871

>>4955850

IT SEEMS THAT YOUR OWN SUBPAR "READING COMPREHENSION" PREVENTS YOU FROM EVEN UNDERSTANDING THE MOST BASIC EXPLANATIONS.

I TOLD YOU WHAT THE TERM MEANS; MY JOB IS DONE HERE; IT IS UP TO YOU TO UNDERSTAND & COMPREHEND THE MESSAGE; I CANNOT REMEDY YOUR IDIOCY.

>> No.4955873

>>4955852
the word came into existence from meaning

>> No.4955876

The purest sense of any sign is whatever the fuck the signee and the interpreter agree it is. Why is it that pomos don't understand how language works?

>> No.4955879

>>4955873
The word came into existence from people who agreed that the word should be symbolic of meaning.

>> No.4955882

>>4955879
Yes, we agree that meaning came before the word.

I'm glad you corrected yourself.

>> No.4955884

>>4955873
signifier != signified. we can pick any word to describe anything. the thing does not give rise to the word. we do.

>> No.4955886

>>4955861
Well yeah but the speaker knows his own meaning.

Either way, the important part is that words an sentences don't have meaning on their own. They are used to communicate the speaker's meaning.

>> No.4955896

>>4955884
thanks for agreeing.

>> No.4955899

>>4955871
For all I know you made it up here; I don't see any sources.

>> No.4955906

>>4955882
I'm not the guy you were responding to. I was cleaning up your meaningless "words come from meaning" gibberish with something accurate.

>> No.4955913

>>4955906
I'm sorry you agreed with me. I know you wanted to win.

>> No.4955924

>>4955753
>Would the "purest sense" of a word be where all of its meanings apply in one context?

How would someone who believes this describe auto-antonyms?

What's the purest sense of the word "rent" where both of its meanings "to lend" and "to borrow" apply to the same context?

>> No.4955938

>>4955924
The would not apply in the same context. Only one would and that is the purest form.

>> No.4955957

>>4955938
But you've defined the purest form to be the sense where all of its meanings apply in one context. Picking one of a word's many meanings and calling that the purest context is the opposite of what OP is asking.

>> No.4955965

>>4955957
Purest form* rather, not purest context.

>> No.4955986

>>4955957
No I haven't. I defined the purest form as the meaning that applies to its context. I leave it at that.