No. Mistaking the act of reverse-engineering the use of language, for the act of using it, is an EXTREMELY fundamental mistake our entire recognition and understanding of language is currently based upon, and the evidence for it is EVERYWHERE.
Do not mistake the current lack of such understanding for an understanding that can never exist.
The belief (for that is all it is) you espouse in your reply is wrong, for if language could never be so consistent, was so subjective - IT WOULD and COULD NEVER EXIST.
As I said in my post, confusing language for communication (or even vice-versa) is the most common symptom of such a mistake.
The whole reason language exists is to provide greater consistency in communication, if its foundation was not consistent enough to do so, to allow this to happen, then, as I said, it would never exist to begin with.
To perceive such a consistent foundation as being too subjective to even exist - is to do nothing more than deny the very existence of language itself!
Such is the nature of the problems we have, that replies such as yours, that do exactly this, are not recognised for what they are.
Language is about RULES - consistent rules - that govern the nature of what the pieces of information are (because of what the information is of), as, by and in relation to each other, that then cause a specific, recognised use (in combination with each other) - rules of applied semantics and syntactics. What the individual representations are, is not what matters for language, only communication, that language involves.
Since we do not currently recognise and understand what these rules are, of course we struggle, but that does not mean they don't exist.
The English language has over 60 basic concepts in its functional taxonomic hierarchy. If you think that's too subjective, then I advise you to wait until such a hierarchy and its associated rules of content and grammar have been fully recognised and understood, before truly getting involved in linguistics.
If you fail to understand the relationships between semiosis/semiotics, communication and language my post describes, then I advise you to wait until everyone else has it figured out fully and completely, again, so they can also figure out how best to teach and describe it to everyone else, (and yourself), properly.
