A problem with these "positivistic/linguistic types" is that they take language for granted, or presume to have full control over it, including the inception of language. If you do not have power to personally control language including its inception, then there is some greater ontological issue that contextualizes both you and your language; and this ontological issue needs to be addressed to do justice to things. There is a popular belief that "man invented language" - but we only have theoretical inference for that. Just because we can use language does not mean we own it or control it. At minimum, it is apparent that an individual person can only use language, but cannot effectively create it. For even if we do make up a new word or meaning, it will depend on whether other people (whom we cannot control) will use it as well or not whether that word or meaning will become a functional part of language. Whereby it appears that the reasons for why a new word or meaning becomes functional in a population has to do with forces that are sometimes beyond people's will (such as specifics of the vocal tract or the soci-economic sphere in which a word or meaning is popularized). So we're back at that greater ontological issue that contextualizes both us and our language.