The limits of my vocabularies are the limits of my world.
Vocabulary is the most elementary material for a “language being”. It is recommended that we understand language is not just in classical meaning a “communication tool” or refers to a “kind of language”, but it is the most fundamental cohesive network that becomes [a] “sense(s)” for one’s sight, capture, sensation, thought, experience, and living. This is where vocabulary, one might say, clandestinely appears as the strength and firmness of a “language being”.
It seems very accurate that I say human beings are always climbing age, which means all the time they have as well been climbing vocabulary. Vocabulary always manifests as how long we can stretch our arms, how far we can swing our steps, and how deep our view can penetrate a mossy well from just its surface.
One may be able to claim that he had a great experience, but if (s)he cannot express it, it means that (s)he does not have enough vocabulary (paradoxically: even that “great” experience is, as a matter of ontological fact, composed of and structured by the vocabularies). Vocabulary is the backbone of language without which a “language being” is a mere being or a thing (if you will); that is to say, (s)he is no different from other “creatures/existents”.
It is important to note that the term vocabulary I am referring to here has two meanings: [1] word entry or diction [2] treasure or horizon.
Probably, people would be curious, posing a question, “Can you talk about love?” Firmly and confidently, I would respond to it quickly, “Very well.” All things can be expressed by and within words. Even “[G]od-which-is-totally-unique” expresses or manifests Herself through revelation in the form of [w]ord (logos) — which is sort of ironic that “love” can’t be elucidated.
Most people would argue that “taste” and “experience” can not be able to be expressed. This is an understanding that is most often misunderstood. Actually, it refers to the fact that what Angga’s feelings or experiences cannot be transferred or understood properly by Anggi without feeling or experiencing them herself. That’s properly true. However, with regard to “disclosure” we can still manoeuvre all the “vocabularies” we have so as to express, at least, the most adequate and congruent representation(s) of the feeling(s) or experience(s).
Somewhat arrogantly I would like to assert that the person who says not everything can be explained by words demonstrates that (s)he actually does not have enough vocabulary (either in meaning [1] or meaning [2]). In my viewpoint, language is two wings, and vocabularies are the feathers of those wings.
I want to summarise right away that the strength of how high and how far the wings flap depends entirely on how many feathers the two wings have. Thus, it is very appropriate to say, “[T]he limits of my vocabularies are the limits of my world.”[]