In the scientific literature rightly argues that w...

In the scientific literature rightly argues that words themselves do not exist. It is in the context of other words, which determines their content. Of course it is also true that the context has completed part of the text, as well as the entire text, which determines the basic meaning of words and sentences.

Reasoning about some incremental sense, is right only in that part which concerns the General meaning of the words used. This means that no matter which rich content and flexible structure of the word would not be, it still has its limits of use. And whatever context we took every word fits, every sentence can be easily inserted into the text, especially not transforming them.

And how significantly would the basic meaning of the word has not been transformed from the basic essence of the word to go will not be possible. That is why the words are divided into classes, subclasses and so form a structured totality within a certain common sense. The different values they acquire only to a certain limit.

Poet correct in principle, the claim that the context changes and in fact is often a significantly original meaning of the word, however, must be clearly stated, or at least to describe the scope of these the most significant changes, i.e. to what extent it is subject to change and in what contexts it can be put, and which are not.