Blog post 4

Richard makes a valid point and backs his claim up with many examples, but to me I don’t fully understand why he is making his claim and I don’t agree with it. I like the idea that words are just to present their sense just like a man presents his name. The idea that words don’t have a permanent connotation doesn’t make sense to me. There are words that are used only in a certain context. He brings up that point but these words with negative connotations would never be used in a context of a positive situation. For example the word “Gore” it’s a noun and can also be an adjective, but the sense that the term presents is something that is awful. I’m not sure how his claims relate to our discussion of Remix. I think that what he is trying to say in relation to remix is that, words with “negative connotations” can be remixed and used in a different context than what they are usually used in and create a whole new sense and connotation for that word. He then goes on to state how words are “a cooperative member of an organism,” and “fluid.” Richards states how words are free and that they shouldn’t be tied down to the usual connotations and contexts that a certain word is usually associated with. But I’m not completely sure about it. I would say that the excerpt as a whole was confusing to me but there were some parts that I was able to pick up and understand. Even though I may not have that strong of a grasp on the idea, I don’t agree with it entirely.