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

The the the the the, the the the the the the the the; the the the the the the.

I am groot.

Gary, Gary... Gary?

Not really. A word with every meaning is meaningless itself, since it doesn't allow you to narrow down the word's intended meaning from the set of all possible meanings.

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"

You seem to be looking for the word fuck.

sounds skibidi

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.

You sure as squantch can!

ACK! ACK ACK ACK ACK. ACK ACK.

In theory, yes. In practice, no.

The association between meaning and word is arbitrary, but socially dictated. You'd need to have other people accepting that that word conveys that meaning in at least some context.

May I mambo dogface to the banana patch?

fnord

Smurf.

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

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!

Ook.

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.

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

Yes

Than*

I thought we did this with buffalo

Chicken.

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

Hoogla!