Consider this sentence – The army attacked the enemy.
Now, it is only common sense that can tell that the enemy is mostly another (country’s) army and not just say a person who is an enemy (which is a theoretical possibility – uncommonsensical). So, a sentence, when applied commonsense to, conjures up a commonsensical picture of likely reality.
So it is the semantics of the words which somehow gells to create the commonsensical picture.
Here is a algorithmic way to arrive at that commonsensical reality –
1) Take individual meanings of the words.
army – ‘a group of army people / a regiment’ is what comes in front of your eyes. Call this meaning as A.
attack – ‘the act of forcibly hitting/beating/acting upon….etc.’ is what you imagine. Call this meaning as B.
enemy – ‘someone who you have to be wary of, protect yourself from, fight, who is harmful for you’ is what comes to mind. Call this meaning as C.
2) Now take all possible combinations of words.
i) army – attack
ii) attack – enemy
iii) army – enemy
3) Simplistically fuse the meanings of the individual words in the pair.
i) army – attack -> A + B -> ‘a group of army people forcibly hitting/beating/acting upon…..etc’.
Note here that the fragment ‘army attacked’ (/ ‘army attack’) makes Linguistic sense. That is the basis of the fusion of the words. Let this fusion be called X.
ii) attack – enemy -> B + C -> ‘the act of forcibly hitting/beating/acting upon someone who is harmful to you, who you have to be wary of, protect yourself from, fight’.
Note here that the fragment ‘attack enemy’ makes Linguistic sense. That is the basis of the fusion of the words. Let this fusion be called Y.
iii) army – enemy -> A + C -> ?Now the fragment ‘army enemy’ doesnt make Linguistic sense on its own. It could be ‘army which is enemy’ or ‘army’s enemy’ or something else. Draw forth the right sense from the sentence. The army attacked enemy implies army attacked IT’s enemy implies it is the ARMY’s enemy.
So, A + C -> here when you fuse, you will imagine the army’s enemy as ANOTHER (COUNTRY’S) ARMY WHICH IS THE ENEMY; thus the fusion is – ‘a group of army people / a regiment’s enemy which is another (country’s) army’. Let this fusion be called Z.
4) So now we have 3 fusions – X, Y and Z as described above.
Now, reunite them. (See the note in red below, later).
How to reunite? This will be a cyclic chain.
X (army attacked) and Y (attacked enemy) combine to give ‘army attacked enemy’ which in the form of the fusions is X + Y which is ‘a group of army people forcibly hitting/beating/acting upon…etc. upon someone who is harmful to you, who you have to be wary of, protect yourself from, fight’.
Note – Here, X + Y = A + B + B + C. Here B repeats. Take the latter of the 2 fragments, as a matter of convention.
Y + Z -> Y is ‘attack enemy’ and Z is ‘army’s enemy’. They combine as ‘attack army’s enemy’ which is equivalent to – ‘a group of army people / a regiment engaged in an act of forcibly hitting/beating/acting upon…etc. someone which is another (country’s) army’. (Taking the repeated fragment from the latter of the 2 i.e. from Z)
X + Z -> X is ‘army attacked’ and Z is ‘army’s enemy’. They combine as ‘army attacked army’s enemy’. This becomes – ‘a group of army people / a regiment forcibly hit/beat/acted upon….etc. its enemy which is another (country’s) army’.
(NOTE : Mathematically, this might look like just going in circles – doing and undoing, which it is not. Note the key step (3-iii) in bold above. That qualitatively includes the way a certain pair is combined, and in a certain particular right sense, and factoring in commonsense, to give a certain critical fusion, which THEN GELS INTO THE OTHER FUSIONS in the last round (step 4)).
The above 3 sentences in bold (in black) are the reality-pictures corresponding to the original sentence! 2 of them contain the aspect talked about at the very beginning.
This can be scaled up for higher number of words in the sentence.