Then you’re entirely willing to concede that “Quack quack quack, quack quack, quack quack. Quack quack quack quack.” is entirely intelligible because you can easily ascribe multiple meanings to various instances of ‘quack’ so that it makes sense?
The point being that there’s definitely a threshold beyond which ambiguity of meaning makes parsing a sentence and resolving its meaning impossible. The more specific (and distinguishable) terms are, the less risk there is of a misunderstanding. This is Information Theory 101.
The point being that there’s definitely a threshold beyond which ambiguity of meaning makes parsing a sentence and resolving its meaning impossible. The more specific (and distinguishable) terms are, the less risk there is of a misunderstanding. This is Information Theory 101.