Steven Brust wrote: > 1) The more any given group agrees on the meaning of a word, the better > they are able to exchange ideas. I can testify to this, by painful experience. My wife is Chinese. She speaks English very well, but she is nowhere near the point at which she will begin to _think_ in English, so she is constantly translating from Mandarin. This makes our communication, um, interesting, at times. She will use a word that she understands has the meaning closest to the Mandarin word she wants, but when I hear the word, I think something distinctly different from what she has in mind. For a real example that happened just the other day: She used the word "complicated" to describe elementary school classmates. Now, when I think of that word, I think "complex, multilayered, hidden levels," all about personality. I gradually began to realize, though, that she was referring not to their personalities but to their behaviors, in that they were always looking for ways to advance themselves, to make new and better personal contacts so that they would be more successful in school (and in society in general). I'm reasonably sure that the Mandarin word that she translated expresses her true meaning pretty precisely. Unfortunately, the English word "complicated" didn't (and, in fact, there isn't an English word that I'm aware of offhand that _would_ capture the meaning she intended). So confusion ensued until I realized that what she meant wasn't what I was hearing. So, yeah, people have to agree on the meanings of words before they can communicate effectively, or at all. -- Frank Mayhar frank at exit.com http://www.exit.com/ Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/