To remedy the Defects of Speech before-mentioned, to some degree, and to prevent the Inconveniencies that follow from them, I imagine, the observation of these following Rules may be of use, till some body better able shall judge it worth his while, to think more maturely on this Matter, and oblige the World with his Thoughts on it.First, A Man should take care to use no word without a signification, no Name without an Idea for which he makes it stand. This Rule will not seem altogether needless, to any one who shall take the pains to recollect how often he has met with such Words; as Instinct, Sympathy, and Antipathy, etc. in the Discourse of others, so made use of, as he might easily conclude, that those that used them, had no Ideas in their Minds to which they applied them; but spoke them only as Sounds, which usually served instead of Reasons, on the like occasions. Not but that these Words, and the like, have very natural connexion between any Words, and any Ideas, these, and any other, may be learn'd by rote, and pronounced or writ by Men, who have no Ideas in their Minds, to which they have annexed them, and for which they make them stand; which is necessary they should, if Men would speak intelligibly even to themselves alone.
(Ed. Peter H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon, 1979. 512)
So here's why I like him: Locke is always really good about making sense, and not just saying things that probably mean something but don't communicate well. (If Locke were alive, I'd totally take a seminar he was teaching. Or, even better, be one of his classmates—Locke would be tedious, but painstakingly clear, in talking about anything even slightly difficult. Once you got to the end of his sentences, you'd really understand what he meant.) It's weird to me, though, that he talks about making sense in terms of using the right words—he never discusses people who abuse language by using a difficult style, or too many words, or difficult syntax. (And he's often guilty of all of those abuses, too, which makes me suspect he didn't notice that they were a problem just as much as using words that don't mean anything.) I'm guessing this is a historical context issue—if Locke doesn't use the word "sentence," maybe it's because people still weren't thinking in terms of sentences yet. (OED is, as usual, fuzzy on the exact kind of "sentence" I mean—and Locke himself would criticize me for not really knowing just what kind of "sentence" it is I'm looking for. Maybe I mean "clause"—a grammatical unit that's the next step up from a word. But Locke doesn't mention "sentences" OR "clauses" anywhere in the third book on Words. Hmm.
