Go and study philosophy, you will get all of the precision word sense functions to your hearts content, especially in papers on functionalism and synaesthesia, heck it is the first time I encountered the words quale and qualia, meaning a generic experiencial unit of any sense datum.

Then of course if you don't find a word in philosophy that covers what you exactly want it to you simply make a term up and define it for yourself, I do this quite a bit in my thesis despite me being primarily an ethicist.

btw, one of the best German  which my lady has taught me and which I now use quite a lot is "yine" this is one we really! need in English.
As you probably know ja (pronounced ya), is yes in german. and "nine" is no. So "yine" which is pronounced as to rhyme with shine wbut withy a y sound is when something has both a yes and no answer.

The problem is you couldn't do this in English, ---- since yo and nes both mean something very different .

Another one I really wish we had in English is a gender neutral set  of pronouns that still implied humanity but did not reduce to objective, eg, you can't go  using it and it's of people, (disturbingly enough Edith Nesbit does this of the children in all of her books, which makes them sort of worrying for the status of children's classics).

"there" is a clunky alternative since  heavily implies group or group consciousness,  anyway there is  singular of there, --- -you can't say went into the bathroom and washed their face" if talking about a single person but not wishing to give a gender.

I did rather like what Fredric Pohl does in year's of the city, where he imagines a time when he and she are replaced with 'e him and her replaced with 'em (sounding like umm), and his and her's replaced with 'ers.

He even sees boy and girl used of children replaced by a universal "kid" which is sort of wrong .

The only time he uses he and she in that world is for   hemale and shemale which were the descriptions of each gender.

That one actually sounds attractive, albeit it does make you sound a bit like a cockney .

I am not that keen on the z pronowns, they sound a bit  harsh for an English sentence and are a bit too alien.
One woman I did hear actually wrote a book with one character who was entirely called @they@ throughout the narrative on the basis she didnj't want to reveal the person's gender, but apparently this made the book feel very clunky to read.

That is why I rather liked Pohl's solution of simply dropping the first letters and taking one each of the possessives.

Yaknow sounds a bit too American for my liking,since usually in English English only the uglier, shorter dialects tend to shorten you to ya, it's part of the local Nottingham accent that I killed, so I wouldn't wand yaknow to stand in for yine.

Yine is actually a nice word in itself and it's one my wife and I do use together, albeit I don't know how many people would get what we're talking about.

Another word which I really wish had a bit  definition is the word @love@ it's a catch all term that covers so much of a conceptual mess that it's unbelievable.
then again, even if you separate out the griek agape, ---- i.e love of one's neighbor or ethical love, Philos, i.e, liking or friendship, and eros, i.e, erotic sexual love, you still end up with such a huge quag mire in each term.

Eg, is a happily married couple experiencing philos or Eros? and if you @love@ a friend is that Philos or Agape?
What if you @love@ a computer game or a book or an author's work?

And it's still worse when "Love" becomes a verb which can relate to anything from a relationship, to a deep liking, to physical love making.

it would be nice to separate all oof these concepts out, but while there have been some pretty good attempts, most people don't pay too much attention to them, ---- heck these days most people just go with "I heart" and leave it at that .

then again before I go on a big rant about people these days having a reduced vocabulary due to prevalence of text speak  low attention spans of readers causing description to be a dirty word in writing terms methinks I'd better stop.

Hmmm Jaseoffire, I thought English still! had the word charity, albeit the concept it embodies is sort of out of fashion these days .

@Jaseoffire, actually if you read any books on virtue theory you will still find "charity" in the sense of the faculty of generally being well desposed towards other people is mentioned there,  my Sinicism does rather suggest that is probably the only! place you find it other  as the moniker for a bunch of organizations who often use it as a way to get tax breaks for their business (the Rnib, aka royal national institute  for the blind hear in Britain is rather terrible for this).

@Tjt while I do wish English was phonetic in spelling, one thing I will say is I love! all the ambiguities and different terms, the fact there is! so much nuance, one reason why text speak conversations and books that don't bother writing descriptively piss me off since it's like  someone going into a five star restaurant  and asking for baked beans.

I confess I've never really seen the point of Esperanto other  the way it is portrayed in Red dwarf novels, basically as a status symbol, since nobody actually speaks it, and unlike cool invented languages like elvish there isn't anything unique to read in it.
Then again I confess I find the actual sound! of Esperanto extremely ugly with it being such a mishmash of European languages, on the few occasions I have heard it.

@Dark, yeah, it isn't much better here across the pond, honestly. LOL!!! As for Esperanto, I think I remember hearing somewhere that it was meant to be a global language. Of course, I don't think it caught on. To this day, I think that English still remains the more global language. I'd say that it's because of its versatility, but I know very well that it's because English speaking countries at the moment serve as the current powerhouses of the world. LOL!!! Much in the way Latin used to be the chief language back when the Roman Empire was the major power in the world.

Hello,
As a student of English, I can say English is one of the easiest languages I've had to do with. If you're taking up English as a second language, or as a third language, that is, English may be an essential requirement to begin a masters degree, or your employer wants you to have a basic level B1 of English, in this instance, English is fairly easy. But if you want to study English academically like me, that becomes a little tricky, though I can say the experience has been satisfying so far as I've learnt many things about this language and its culture. One thing I've never been able to understand; why on this planet the Opposition to the separation of the state from the Church of England should be called antidisestablishmentarianism. Couldn't they, for example, find a shorter term for such a simple decision? One work by Lewis Carroll I find particularly astounding; Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, an entertaining book for children, but amazingly elaborative in language.  A book whose phrases have been quoted by numerous linguists in many case studies of language, particularly in the field of Semantics. I've read it, not to enter the world of imagination, but to experience the work you can do with language, and this book really uses language wisely, in fact more creatively than some other complicated books. On one occasion I find English difficult; literature; I spend more hours looking up special terms than actually reading the book. There are some authors whom I cannot really understand because they use language in a quite weird manner, one of them being a metaphysical English poet, called John Donne, an author I think I'll never be able to understand.
I may consider learning French, one of those languages I used to dislike due to its odd writing rules and pronunciation, but to be honest, it's really melodious and it has a rich vocabulary. One language I think I'll never come to understand in terms of its vocabulary and pronunciation, that is Dutch; a mixture of Romance, Latin, Germanic, Slavic, Arabic, African, and God knows what mixture of other language families.