Bill Pirkle writes:

>Definitions provide a common base for comparison.  It assures, for example,
>that if we are discussing "cats", you are not talking about a furry animal
>and I'm talking about a broadway show.

Definitions do this only if the communications protocol includes an
exchange of "what do you mean by" messages.  I.e., the parties to the
interaction must recognize the opportunity for ambiguity and do something
about it.  In my experience this is rather less often the case than not.
When one stops to consider what's involved in the accurate exchange of
information by language, one can't help but conclude how remarkable it
is that it works as well as it does.

len.