More Thoughts

To start, I have to admit that I probably don't completely understand this Newspeak thing, but I do have to disagree with what Eric said about it being "almost impossible to express our feelings and ideas without using the appropriate words and meanings." I think that this even connects to what Hayakawa says about extensional meanings (for those of you who have gotten that far). I think that someone can have the concept of 'freedom and liberty,' for example, through use of other known words. In the end, the word may no longer be 'freedom and liberty,' but the concept will still be understood. It's like how Hayakawa gave the example of golf terms (again for those of you who read ahead). Someone may not know what an Albatross is, but it can be explained through other terms and contexts. Another example can be shown in everyday life. When we want to tell someone something that we do not know how to describe? In most cases, we blabber on until the other person understands what we are talking about. if the thing has an extensional meaning, we may even make a gesture towards it and call it 'that thingy over there.'
Also, I think the same goes with other languages. Although, there may not be one specific words, I think that the concept can still be understood. (except maybe not in casses as the Andamanese language).
I even think that it would be possible if we had to make up our own words. As Hayakawa states (I'm sorry if I'm spoiling anything for anyone. I couldn't stop reading the book after I started) names are symbols and that symbols are seperate from the things symbolized, a concept many people mess up. So in the end, going back to the 'freedom' example, the word freedom is a symbol of the concept, and therefore communication is possible with just 'made up words.'

(Mary Quien)