Romance and Romantic have many different meanings depending on the intellectual contextual horizon in which they are used. An English literature major would have, certainly, clusters of meaning different than a toddler, as would someone listening to My Chemical Romance.

While the meaning of the word romance, when applied to languages, might have its roots in "roman," most modern senses of the word actually derive from early French. Perhaps some clarification is needed to justify a youngster knowing the origins or how the origins effect the meaning of the word.

One wonders, also, at the distinction between intelligence and thought in the assertion that the more one thinks the dumber one becomes, since it seems that thinking opens the chaotic world to understanding and human activity.

Throw it right in their face. There is no way that it could be the truth right? Because if it was, it would not be in the open, but it would be hidden.

Words like Romance or Romantic are words people still don't understand. You literally have to beg them to think about where the words came from, and they barely understand that it came from ancient Rome. The location is right in the word, a toddler would understand that it is from Rome because of their pure thought, or at least a 5 year old child, but the older we get, the more we sacrifice intelligence for thought. We start thinking much much more, but in return, we get dumber.

As far as etymology goes, even the simplest words go through various revolutions in meaning and context until the innocent original becomes perverse or the perverse innocent. That is to say that something that originally starts with a meaning of x, becomes the meaning of y, sometimes in the context of z, etc. Is it so much of hiding truth and so on? I don't really think so. Romance in particular is etymologically derived from compositional form and adventure than anything more central to the blunt word like "roman." That would be one hulluva toddler who would understand the myriad of context and uses of a single word, let alone others.

On your questions and points, etymology and the more subtle meanings play a big part in an answer I think. One philosopher by the name of Stephanie Ross posited that words with seemingly innocuous meaning today are etymologically rooted in deeply hurtful words. She mentioned how when we say "screw" we are in turn bringing up an amalgamation of historically hurtful words. She traces the word from the Celtic buc which is "a point, to piece" to the Latin fustis meaning "a staff or cudgel" to the German ficken, meaning "to strike" to the modern vulgar English equivalent which I need not mention. In so doing, Ross reveals that in something so commonly used without much care for the negative connotations, people still use it without consideration for the etymological history which is deeply hurtful in many referential terms. But to cut the long story short, Ross suggests that these words are what are now called dead metaphors, which mean that some things which may be hurtful have lost their edge and have gone into modern vernacular without due consideration for the true meanings.

Now is Romance and Romantic a dead metaphor, not in the sense that Ross suggests. But in a way, I think the notion is still applicable here. Words like Romantic and Romance have an etymological history whose origins reveal the deeper foundations of the word. However, the context in which we use those words now have a somewhat different meaning, use, etc. In some ways, words mean whatever we want them to mean dependent on the time in use. This is one of the central points to Lewis Carroll's humpty dumpty episode in Through the Looking Glass. Humpty Dumpty and Alice converse on subjects like the un-birthday and the context of "glory," which Alice is keen to remind Humpty is not the correct usage of yet Humpty reveals that words mean whatever he wants them to mean.

And I think it is on that note that I get into one of your points at the end which was that the older we get, the more we sacrifice intelligence for thought (or thinking much more entails we get dumber). In the case of Alice, you have Alice stubbornly attached to a normative framework in which "glory" and "birthday" have specific meaning. Humpty on the other hand represents the more dynamic aspects of referring to a birthday as the days in which they are not or that the context of a word has millions of different meanings. Maybe we could look at Alice as a personification of the older and slightly dumber person. Humpty in turn could for all intents and purposes represent the wide etymological origins of a single word with a million meanings. Honestly, I would still call Humpty dumpty dumber, but I may just be too deeply embedded in Alice's normative framework.

I thought that the Humpty-Dumpty episode satirized the view that an individual can use a word to mean whatever he wants it to mean. Even Humpty-Dumpty admits that to get a word to do that he has to "pay them extra". Words mean what they mean. They don't mean whatever a particular individual want them to mean (unless the individual wants the word to mean what it means). So it does not seem to me that HD reveals anything of the sort you say he reveals. Since he cannot reveal what is false. It is not up to any individual to cause a word to mean what the individual wants it to mean, since it is not in the individual's power to do so. There is one exception: the individual may have the power to stipulate the meaning of a word, as long as others are willing to follow his stipulation.

Since he cannot reveal what is false. It is not up to any individual to cause a word to mean what the individual wants it to mean, since it is not in the individual's power to do so. There is one exception: the individual may have the power to stipulate the meaning of a word, as long as others are willing to follow his stipulation.

exact meaning of the relative episode that is Lewis Carroll's humpty dumpty, especially considering the content. In the spirit of humpty dumpty, I could just say the story means whatever I mean it to mean, however, that seems meaningless. LOL!

But seriously though, Humpty dumpty represents (as far as I am concerned at the moment) a stark contrast to authors like Jonathan Swift and even St. Augustine. Jonathan Swift (Gulliver's Travels)

Are you saying that the HD episode is not a satirical attack on the notion that it is individual who decide what a term means, and that it is not an objective issue that the term "there is glory for you" does not mean "that is a knock-down argument"?

It is impossible to tell. HD tells Alice that "there is glory for you" means, that "it is a knock-down argument", but that is simply false. Swift, and normative frameworks have nothing to do with it. Please stick to the point.

There is one exception: the individual may have the power to stipulate the meaning of a word, as long as others are willing to follow his stipulation.

But seriously though, Humpty dumpty represents (as far as I am concerned at the moment) a stark contrast to authors like Jonathan Swift and even St. Augustine. Jonathan Swift (Gulliver's Travels) maintained that language in particular was irritating and useless. In fact, we should just carry around the objects we name (nouns being the most important thing). Primitive language then becomes a direct factor here in terms of the story in question. But whereas Swift presents a base primitive interpretation (which I hope is taken in terms of the story), Humpty Dumpty inextricably connects language and thought. Swift's character represents rigidity (words tied directly to what they name) and Carroll's character represents unconstrained applicability. In so many words, words mean whatever humpty means them to mean. So long story made ironic, most things in this context are relative.

I dont see how this could be done other than within the framework of an extant linguistic convention.

The convention would be, "Let's call this new kind of substance, 'a gas'" And if the term becomes establish as the name for this new kind of substance, the term becomes the name of that new kind of substance.

"Let's call this new substance" can only be understood within an extant linguistic convention.

What has that to do with stipulation?

You hit a snake, go back to post 10.

Which snake is that? I said only that the stipulator could establish a convention for the use of a particular term as long as others would follow him in that use. I did not deny that there were other background-conventions involved. Of course there are. Omission is not denial.

Okay, so I'll take post 13 as repetition.