11 Dec '07 17:01>3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThat being said, these aspects of human existence transcend the same to find their meaning from source(s) outside of the human experience--- so much so, that without an understanding of their source, the words would eventually devolve into meaninglessness: isolated and restricted to self-application, a language endemic to but one person.
First off, ouch. Secondly, the dictionary is only helpful if one knows how to spell the word in the first place. I know perfectly well how to spell most of the words that I use: it's my fingers who refuse to abide by the same rules.
Now, more to the point. Common usage/understanding notwithstanding, as v pointed out, your list of words find their mea ...[text shortened]... inglessness: isolated and restricted to self-application, a language endemic to but one person.
???
Or, rather:
(1) That being said, these aspects of human existence transcend the same to find their meaning from source(s) outside of the human experience
???
—Sign (signifier + signified) and referent. No inherent need for the signified to entail an actual referent (e.g., hobbits), nor for the referent to “transcend” human experience. Your assertion is analogous to claiming that earthly language, to have meaning, must have some alien (extra-terrestrial) source, simply expanding that to an extra-cosmic source.
(2) ...so much so, that without an understanding of their [presumably experience-transcendent] source, the words would eventually devolve into meaninglessness:
???
—This question, of course refers to the same experience-transcendent claim as (1), hence my bracketed addition. I am not suggesting that language does not derive meaning from natural experience.
(3) ...isolated and restricted to self-application, a language endemic to but one person.
???
—I’m not sure there can be a language “endemic to but one person.”