Today I opened my trusty dictionary to a random page, and I proceeded to see how many of the 50-or-so words I could define. So I didn't get all 50. But that's not important. Rather, I found it interesting that our (or, at least mine) internalized definition of many words is a bit wonky. For example, we all know what "anniversary" means, but how many of us can define it precisely? I tried, and I must admit I stumbled quite a bit. Eventually I came up with, "A special reoccurring date". Ehhh. That's poor in contrast to the succinct dictionary definition, which is, "The annual recurring date of a past event".

So I pose the following question:

What words can you think of that EVERYBODY knows the definition of, but which very few of us might be able to define precisely?

Is there a single most "difficult" word that all of us can define internally but which would be very hard to define to, say, an alien?

quote:

What words can you think of that EVERYBODY knows the definition of, but which very few of us might be able to define precisely?

This is relevant to a discussion we had a while back, in which we were trying to decide which human characteristics were responsible for the success of our species. It seemed obvious enough until some took issue with the suggestion that the human race was the most successful species on the planet.

How do you define "success"?

Set?

quote:

Set?

Surely the trouble with "set" is not that it's a tricky word to define but that it has so many meanings. Once you decide which of the meanings you want, then definition isn't too tricky.

<sigh>

Good question and welcome to Wordcraft!

I always think it's easier to define a person, place or thing, rather than something more abstract like a "thought" or and "idea" or "happiness."

yes, i agree that it is easier to define animate objects

and, what i was hoping to have people throw my way are words that ARE nouns and "things", but which we still have a hard time defining externally but which we all have internal definitions for

as an example, consider the word "light", as in the noun, referring to the physical concept ... how do you, kalleh, define it? well ALL know what light is, but is there a non-technical way to define it without using terms such as photon, spectrum, electromagnetic, etc.?

so, i'm not quite sure that physical vs. non-physical and animate vs. inanimate are good enough gauges by which we can determine that a word is easy or difficult to define ... there has to be something more, and that's what i'm trying to get at

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Good question and welcome to Wordcraft!

I always think it's easier to define a person, place or thing, rather than something more abstract like a "thought" or and "idea" or "happiness."

quote:

as an example, consider the word "light", as in the noun, referring to the physical concept ... how do you, kalleh, define it?

First you have to be clear about which meaning you are trying to define...

Judging from the responses so far, it appears that one word that is difficult to define is...

Definition.

From the Saussure book that I am reading for our Linguistics 101 course:

"It is an error of method to proceed from words in order to give definitions of things." He was speaking about his discussion of linguistic structure and says that no word corresponds precisely to any one of the notions that he had specified.

quote:

Originally posted by fjagodzi:What words can you think of that EVERYBODY knows the definition of, but which very few of us might be able to define precisely?

I would say "art", but that's probably one that "everybody THINKS he knows the definition of". Perhaps "pornography"?

quote:

Is there a single most "difficult" word that all of us can define internally but which would be very hard to define to, say, an alien?

That's easier: "left" or "right". Easy to demonstrate, but darned hard to define.

Left and right. Right, especially to an alien whose form isn't bilateral.

quote:

Left and right. Right, especially to an alien whose form isn't bilateral

But in order to get here, an alien would have to be familiar with the concept of right, left, up, down, forward, backward. Otherwise they would still be on the outside looking in at us.

Ooooh ... the words left and right are exactly what I was looking for. How in the heck do you define them? Among several variations for the definition of the word left, I have found, "Of, belonging to, located on, or being the side of the body to the north when the subject is facing east," which I think is wholly inadequate. It seems that my dictionary defines left in terms of right and right in terms of left. A bit circuitous.

And, no, an alien would not need to be familiar with right, left, up, down, etc. Only if an alien travels through space-time using cardinal directions would he (she, it, they, blggsdhxsd) need to be familiar with such terms. What if an alien, "thinks" direction (much like in Asimov's "The Gods Themselves"). Who would have thought that this would come up in a vocabulary forum

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:

quote:

Left and right. Right, especially to an alien whose form isn't bilateral

But in order to get here, an alien would have to be familiar with the concept of right, left, up, down, forward, backward. Otherwise they would still be on the outside looking in at us.

quote:

What if an alien, "thinks" direction

Even thinking a direction requires a knowledge of right/left/up/down/forward/back/sideways, otherwise the direction would be random and makes the likelihood of an alien finding us just a matter of luck.

I also think this introduces a condition not inherent in the original premise.

quote:

I would say "art", but that's probably one that "everybody THINKS he knows the definition of".

I take it you've missed a few posts here, Shu?

I defined art in an OEDILF limerick.

Re left an right. There are various forms of non-Euclidean geometry that specifically do not require those concepts. An alien used to thinking in such terms would not need them.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

quote:

words that ARE nouns and "things", but which we still have a hard time defining externally

From the original premise, there is nothing about aliens who think or feel internally. If that was the case they could in all probablility read our minds to get our definitions without the need of spoken, external, language.

I think left and right are very good examples.

Try defining them in terms that do not refer specifically to compass directions or to each other. The original premise was words that we all know the meaning of but that are difficult to define. They seem to fit the bill to me.

quote:

Perhaps "pornography"?

I don't know how to define it but I know it when I do it.

It seems to me that the question has shifted a bit.

From "words which we all know the meaning of, but can't easily define" to "pairs of words that cannot be defined without reference to each other."

I think most relational pairs fit into the latter group, some more directly and obviously than others.

Regarding non-Euclidean geometry: I would have said that some (not all?) non-Euclidean geometries make our notions of left and right almost, if not completely, meaningless. Euclidean geometry doesn't require those concepts; it provides a framework in which they have meaning. But I may be putting Descartes before the horse.

quote:

I think left and right are very good examples.

Try defining them in terms that do not refer specifically to compass directions or to each other. The original premise was words that we all know the meaning of but that are difficult to define. They seem to fit the bill to me.

I had a brainwave (left-brain, no doubt) last night and here's my definition of left and right, as they relate to position.

Left. That side of the human body in which the heart is usually situated.

Right. That side of the human body opposite to where the heart is usually situated.

I chose the heart rather than another asymmetrical organ, since it is probably the one internal organ that most people can locate with little difficulty.

By extension, left and right-handedness or position of anything can readily be derived by reference to that of the human body.

quote:

Originally posted by Valentine:
It seems to me that the question has shifted a bit.

From "words which we all know the meaning of, but can't easily define" to "pairs of words that cannot be defined without reference to each other."

think most relational pairs fit into the latter group, some more directly and obviously than others.

Possibly, but it doesn't alter the fact that

left : opposite direction to right
right : opposite direction to left

is no definition at all.

I quote like Richard's attempt though (excluding our hypothetical aliens, of course).

I wasn't arguing that the left/right definition you give isn't circular, just that that wasn't the original question.

Regarding left/right: Your definition is only one of many possible ones. Here are two approaches that aren't so clearly circular:

Left and right: those sides of an object that are reversed when viewed in a a mirror. Which is left, and which is right, depends on the vantage point of the viewer (his left, my right).

Left: the opposite of right. Right: the side of the body containing the hand that is, statistically, most commonly used in writing. [EDIT: Sorry, RE, I wrote this before reading your heart definition.]

And how do you explain to your definee what "opposite" and "reverse" mean?

By contrasting up and down: a mirror image doesn't have your feet at the top, and your head at the bottom.

By the way, NEVER ask a physicist to explain why.

quote:

Left. That side of the human body in which the heart is usually situated.

Truly, I don't want to be cantankerous, but rather accurate. Generally the heart is considered to be centrally located, even though the general public considers it to be on the left. Note this picture on the upper left.

quote:

And how do you explain to your definee

Definee. That's a new one on me.

quote:

Truly, I don't want to be cantankerous, but rather accurate. Generally the heart is considered to be centrally located, even though the general public considers it to be on the left. Note this picture on the upper left.

I agree it is not on the extreme left - but much of it is slightly to the lefthand side of the breastbone. And, let's face it, a thing doesn't have to be to the extreme left or the extreme right to convey the idea of handedness.

One could use other asymmetric references, I suppose - a dial clock would be a logical choice - but the great thing about bodies is that we all have one and know its makeup reasonably well.

I think it is hard to define the word, "word".

Good point sewnmouthsecret (weird name!).
Defining the word "word" is a trick we've never managed here, and God knows we've tried enough times.

Currently we seem to be having big problems with defining the word "tax".

quote:

Originally posted by Valentine:
By contrasting up and down: a mirror image doesn't have your feet at the top, and your head at the bottom.

By the way, NEVER ask a physicist to explain why.

The only reason you perceive a difference is because you are ascribing a "facing" to the mirror that is pointing in the opposite direction to the way that you are facing, and we often define the right and left side of an object as relative to the way an object is facing. Consider something that has no assumed facing, such as a landscape, a hunk of cement, a shadow, or a piece of glass. We would naturally refer to the right side as the side closest to our right hand. Thus when we wave our right hand, our reflection hand closest to the hand we moved also waves. So long as we keep our facing perspective constant, that is the right side of the mirror where we see the reflection waving.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Myth Jellies,