X, hearing “apricot”, and unaware of the secret context, and not picking up on any nonverbal clues as to its intended use as an insult, does not have a solitary interpretation.
He has the same interpretation of it (“orange fruit like a small peach”) most people would have. That’s a shared interpretation he has with the rest of his speech community. He is not solitary. You can’t isolate him from his speech community in this hypothetical.
I see your point.
What happens if X does pick up on something, like let’s say the mocking tone of “na-na-na-poo-poo” when the boy says “X-is-an-apri-cot”. I think what you are saying is that most people would interpret “apricot” as some sort of insult, when heard in the context of that mocking tone. Therefore X is not alone in his interpretation, therefore my earlier argument about the meaning of words being subjective rests on a false premise.
I’m not convinced that I’m wrong on the overall question so much as that the particular apricot example was flawed. Are you still interested in continuing this debate? or would you rather stop here?
~Max
Happy to continue, but you see how it’s not about the meaning of the word “apricot” as a standalone, right? It’s about the entire semantic load of the communication, including tone, facial expression, etc.
Verbal communications are never just about the meanings of words. So you can’t tease subjectivity out of it that easily. To resolve whether words are subjective vs objective, you’d need a different setting for your example. You probably want to focus on a written medium as opposed to a verbal one.