If a word can have as many meanings as we assign to it; can we assign every meaning to one word?

Smurf yeah we can.

Marklar

Aladeen

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo

I am groot.

Gary, Gary... Gary?

Professional academic linguist here. (Yes, that's a thing.)

Words have the meanings that communities apply to them. There is no governing body over word meanings. There can be a tension (e.g. two groups using the same term in different ways), but that doesn't really mean that the word means both. Words mean different things to different groups. It has to be this way, for epistemic and pragmatic reasons.

In that sense, meanings are not consciously assigned. So the answer to your original question could be "no".

But in another sense, all meanings are possible for any given meaningful sequence around the world. Which means, in principle, given infinite communities of practice, a word could have infinite meanings. A stretch, of course.

Edit:

There is no governing body over word meanings

I'm speaking here in terms of global English. There are some languages that have governing bodies, or at least bodies that claim to be governing bodies, like French with the Académie Française. But this is not at all the norm.

Yes, literally.

"Dude"

sounds skibidi

You seem to be looking for the word fuck.

Theoretically, yes. In practice, no. Suppose bla becomes a everything word. If anyone asks what bla means, you say it means bla. The other person won't understand, you persist on bla bla bla meaning bla means bla, by which bla can mean anything and you realize that it just doesn't work, because if it "means anything", in reality it means nothing.

ACK! ACK ACK ACK ACK. ACK ACK.

Ook.

Smurf.

May I mambo dogface to the banana patch?

There's a sci-fi movie from USSR, "Kin-dza-dza". The natives of another planet in another galaxy were telepathes, but used language consisting of only a few words. "Koo" was for almost any word, "kiu" for swearing, "ketse" for matches (most valuable asset) and a few more. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin-dza-dza!

fnord

The simple answer to your question is no. Language is as much about distinction and exclusion as it is about description. The word "circle" stands for the description and properties of the circle, but would be incoherent if it did not also exclude straight lines.

You can often find examples where some things are considered premium or desirable not for the properties is has, but for what it lacks. Just think of all the products marketed to not have something like BPA, fat, sugar, Carbs, gluten, asbestos, lead, and even cruelty.

Let me introduce you to Goptjaam, probably the closest "language" that fits what you mean: https://youtu.be/ze5i_e_ryTk

That's what the word "aught" means. Literally "anything at all."

Dragon's Dogma really loves using it for just about any meaning, too, which is why I had to look it up lol

Than*

Yes

I thought we did this with buffalo

Hoogla!

Correct me if I'm old, but isn't this kinda what gen Z is doing with skibidi?

Chicken.

https://youtu.be/PNVEQgXsBgs?si=xfFzSMLf2ZJXRL0V

I mean, I don't think it's very likely that you could get a critical mass of people to go along with it

Yeah here and AskLemmy get so many replies I’ve sadly had to abandon a few posts due to the sheer number of replies. I really like to reply to everybody that takes the time to comment but in swear I’ve had posts with 400+ comments and I feel overwhelmed.

There's a sci-fi horror story in there somewhere.

Yes yes, yes yes yes. Yes, yes yes yes yes, yes yes yes!

zjierbness

Shit