If words are made up of letters, and letters have no essential meaning to them, does this mean that words have no essential meaning to them?

A type of "hasty generalization," insofar as only the phoneme or sound component is considered, not the Whiteheadian accretion or "added value" which several phonemes combine to sign.

Another possible fallacy type applicable here: an inductive fallacy of remaining on a particular level (phoneme), without considering a possible second degree of application.

A third possible fallacy type: a sorites fallacy, in which a single phoneme + another + another...becomes a "heap" or "word." l...lo...lol...qed :-)

Well, the whole CAN be greater than the sum of its parts. And I think if there's any logical fallacy it's the assumption, or hidden premise, that any value, meaning or property of something must be the same as its constituents. Like if my car can drive 300 miles. That must mean if I smash it into 200 pieces then each piece must be able to go 1.5 miles.

That being said, I still believe words have no INTRINSIC meaning. They're simply labels, or symbols, for ideas or concepts. There's an assumption of mutual understanding of these concepts. But this doesn't exist in my opinion, at least for most words. Worst case example is when one says the word "love". Means as many different things as there are people on the earth, based on their individual experience with it.

If words had intrinsic meaning, then I think we'd be able to understand any language with zero training. And anyone with experience in multiple languages will know there are no direct translations for some words. The meaning, the feeling, the typical usage of the word is just a bit different.

Letters do have meaning. Let me explain.

Words and letters are signs. Any sign is either an icon, index, or symbol. An icon resembles it's object (like the male or female sign on a public bathroom door); an index has a natural relation to the object but not a resemblance (like a weathercock relates to the wind direction); and a symbol is an agreed convention (most words are symbols).

Letters are are symbols (conventional signs) of sounds (except o which is an index because it resembles the mouth shape required for the sound, but it's not an icon because that shape doesn't have a sound), and the combination of letters that make up words are symbols for the object to which we learned, or can learn, they refer.

letters are representations and what they represent make up words so that the words have meaning to them. In addition there are words like "a" that means something (something single, one) So it does have essential meaning to them.

Just as a note, there are other ways of communication, china uses pictures, the deaf use sign language, etc.

The definition of 'noun' means 'a word that explains the reality of a thing."

You can't ask a question like yours and expect that answers would say that answers have no meaning.

Words, like nouns, do have meaning, and letters were themselves words at one time, in the beginning of writing. But if 'w' meant water (to make an example) then other things had to be added to it make 'wind' and 'witch' and 'woman'.

It is known as rubbish. Letters are the building blocks of words and each letter has a meaning, the meaning being its reason for existence. Think (If you can) of bricks and a wall.

In what universe do letters have no meaning??

Why do words like slink, sneak and steal have s sounds? Because s is a letter with creepy, underbelly associations. All letters have sounds, meanings and implications. That is why being named "James" or "Paul" is good and being named "Howard" is terrible.

Yes, that's a fallacy. It's saying combinations don't add up to anything more than the sum of their parts, and they oh so often do.

Of course they have no "inherent" meaning. Language is symbolic. This isn't a fallacy.

I would call it silly. A house made of bricks is more useful than a pile of bricks.