History of words and sentence structure.

[pljames]

I love words but they all have historical meaning, per word. I now am studying sentence structure so to be understood and not misunderstood. I have a perfect handicap to be PERFECT which I know and understand I am not. Is there a way to be totally understood by sentence structure and not misunderstood by words and there history? That's why I am fanatic about the sentence structure over words. Thoughts please. Paul

[Daniel]

Just practice, I think. I'm not sure how to answer this question with any more specific answers in general, though.

[Guijarro]

Maybe if you read The Unfolding of Language, by Guy Deutscher, all your strange troubles will be over. At least, I wish they will!

[mplola]

Paul, I really got confused!

[pljames]

mplola,
 When one writes, they are building a story. The words alone are the building blocks to structured writing. If the reader interprets the writers words and with each words history, the reader will lose what they thought the writer meant. The piece has to flow from word to word without the history of the word alone. What the writer said and meant is two different thoughts.Paul

[freknu]

I really don't get it. Meaning is different from etymology? Not exactly earth-shattering o.O

[mplola]

Paul, I strongly believe in communication -oral or written. That's where the history of words combine not just structure grammatically a sentence and build the background knowledge for listeners or readers -even now I can't understand the meaning of the word "history". History of word etymologically?
My L1 is the Greek language and sometimes the meaning of the loanwords are different in another language. That's why I'm still confused, but still and forever a learner! Thanks, anyway!

[pljames]

freknu,
Excellent explanation on etymology, but like a orchestra leader who has fifteen to twenty musicians to orchestrate each musician, must be in sync with the other musicians and the orchestra leader. Writers also must be in contact and understanding of each word as to relate the subject with words that are in sync with the reader. The reader (interprets) what they thought the writer wrote.

I believe in words with sentence structure instead interpreting every word. It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Thoughts please. Paul

[freknu]

I believe in words with sentence structure instead interpreting every word.

Soulless and robotic text?

It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

That depends on what your goal is.

True words without warmth are harsh, but warm words without truth are soulless. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

[pljames]

Souless and robtic text? Interesting sentence. I try to put meaning in my words. I am not perfect so I do the best I can. Can you re write my last e-mail and put life in the words? Paul

[Daniel]

pljames,

The other moderators and I agree: your posts are confusing and disruptive. They are off topic for this forum. We will allow you to have one thread to discuss your ideas. This one is fine, or you can start a new one here for your personal theories:
http://linguistforum.com/outside-of-the-box/

But if you disrupt other threads or continue posting multiple, confusing threads, you will be temporarily banned from the forum.

[linguistone]

I am sorry you could not understand my subject. I now understand the words as a explanation of the subject. My problem is the order of the words in the sentence. The reader interprets what I said, but that's their way. Different interpretations per reader? I see more understanding in the subject of the writing than the words themselves.

With that in mind what (order), be they words are sentences to clairify  the meaning of that paticular word or sentence? Why I want to clairify any word I do not know. I hope that helps. Linguistone/Paul