Words are not inherently meaningful. We think and feel far more abstractly. We merely summarize ourselves in symbols that approximately tell the same story (women really struggle with this). Don't focus on my words too much. Feel me to understand me. Don't miss the story for the symbols.
[Some think that experiences that can't be penned down and talked about shouldn't be taken seriously, because they likely don't exist. This is a very limited version of reality. By this logic, we must conclude that a baby or an animal experiences nothing because he/it can't talk about it, which is absurd.]
Moreover, words describe only a small set of known and commonly understood experiences.
We don't know infinitely more than we do. So long we rely on words, we'll be clueless like a caged animal. We must also understand that a word doesn't create its experience. The experience comes prior and is approximately symbolized by the word. There has been a trend of creating new words in order to create experiences that are not legitimate. Some examples are equality, justice (man's justice), and fairness. On a societal level, these things have never existed, don't exist, and will never exist, but these words have made people cling to them. These words have enslaved utopian idealists.
Outside the human delusion, words don't exist. We put them together to approximately express how we feel and what we think, much like a painting. Poetry is understood to be less literal, which allows it to become deeply meaningful. If we only talk like poets, we can say and understand a lot more. We can transcend the barrier of language this way, by going backwards. Words can also be compared with variables like x and y in maths. It is funny when my cousin was young, she was fascinated with the use of alphabets in mathematics. "How do x and y end up in math? What are x and y doing there?", she used to ask. I once explained to her x and y are simply placeholders or symbols.
Words, too, are merely symbols. Imagine saying that Roger is eating. Here, Roger symbolizes a boy or a man. Eat symbolizes the physical action of putting something in your mouth. Is helps create a verb form that tells us that the action is still happening. When we put these symbols together, we get an approximate idea of what is being said. However, it can be wrong since it is approximate. Can Roger be a girl? Can Roger be a TV character? Can it an animal? What if he is not eating but merely testing if the food is cooked right? You see there are many ways the sentence can fail to accurately deliver the actual event/experience. This is the fallibility of language. Words are approximate and will always be that way.
Therefore, we must not rely on words but try to feel the speaker. This is also why I say that you are welcome to read philosophers and holy books, but don't think that books can give you the actual truth. All books are symbolic approximations. Do read them, but read for fun.
[Some say Shakespeare invented his own language. I think he did not want to sacrifice his imagination. He created more symbols to allow himself to be felt.]
Here's a related Facebook post I made in 2018. A full backup is here.
Who taught you not to assume and feel? Those may be the two most aspects of communication. You assume that your baby needs water, or your pet needs something. Since my senior year, I have noticed that people rely on words too much (Low Context culture of the west). It's impractical. Not everything can be said. Not everyone is capable of articulating himself. Words are discrete units of communication, but the human experience seems rather continuous, like music, dance, paintings, etc. We are progeny of folks who made assumptions because the non-assuming lineages probably died off as their mothers waited for their babies to demand food and water in explicit words.