You really don't need to know the meaning. You can vastly improve your game just by knowing words like jo, qi xi, aa..
Aside -- words like qi have changed the game a lot.
How would you go about determining in a regulated fashion whether someone knows the meaning of a word?
Would you have them offer a definition to be checked against an official dictionary?
Would the definition given have to match the official dictionary definition word for word?
Is so, wouldn't this simply force high-level scrabble players to memorize not only the official words but the official meanings themselves?
And if perfect matching wouldn't be required, how much variation would be allowed and how would such variation be measured?
There's no sense in falling back on the "just use the word in a sentence" proof, either. Because that's no proof at all, since, even if we dispense with all the problems consensus introduces, if the usage is contested, then some official dictionary definition will have to be referenced in the end.
And then you're going to have to deal with the above mentioned issues anyways.
The desire for a more natural, simple and organic Scrabble world in which any word played must be theoretically backended by a player's knowledge of its definition is, well, just asking for trouble.
The question is: what determines sufficiency?
Edit: Further, definitions are often very difficult to produce even in rudimentary form.
It's like pornography, you know it when you see it. And for the rare instances that it's not obvious, there are judges to make a decision.
How would you go about determining in a regulated fashion whether someone knows the meaning of a word?
Would you have them offer a definition to be checked against an official dictionary?
Would the definition given have to match the official dictionary definition word for word?
Is so, wouldn't this simply force high-level scrabble players to memorize not only the official words but the official meanings themselves?
And if perfect matching wouldn't be required, how much variation would be allowed and how would such variation be measured?
There's no sense in falling back on the "just use the word in a sentence" proof, either. Because that's no proof at all, since, even if we dispense with all the problems consensus introduces, if the usage is contested, then some official dictionary definition will have to be referenced in the end.
And then you're going to have to deal with the above mentioned issues anyways.
The desire for a more natural, simple and organic Scrabble world in which any word played must be theoretically backended by a player's knowledge of its definition is, well, just asking for trouble.