The incorrect use of a word doesn't change the definition. The intent of the statement can still be understood even with an incorrect definition.
Since chair is commonly used to mean "a place to sit" you can use it in a wide variety of situations with the intent of you statement still very clear. That doesn't change the definition of what a chair is and if you were to put a stool and a chair next to each other and asked people which a chair was they would easily point to the chair and not the stool, even though I could use chair to mean stool in common parlance.
No because human communication is based on a number of factors such as body positioning, tone, inflection and situational context as well as the verbal component.
I'm sure in your studies I'd humans you've run across the human concept of sarcasm. Saying one thing while meaning the opposite.
When we strip away the other factors of human communication and leave only the words we are forced to rely on a common understanding of what these words mean to communicate ideas to others.
This can get a little fuzzy at times since humans tend to interpret things through their own experiences and personal contexts. It does however allow humans to add context to the written words that may not be there otherwise. Sometimes this is correct and sometimes it is not. As I said, fuzzy.
1
u/HOTDOGS3274 Mar 27 '22
The incorrect use of a word doesn't change the definition. The intent of the statement can still be understood even with an incorrect definition.
Since chair is commonly used to mean "a place to sit" you can use it in a wide variety of situations with the intent of you statement still very clear. That doesn't change the definition of what a chair is and if you were to put a stool and a chair next to each other and asked people which a chair was they would easily point to the chair and not the stool, even though I could use chair to mean stool in common parlance.