I want to agree that languages are squishy and hard to define things. Some things are well known, but undefinable. I have yet to read a satisfactory definition

I want to agree that languages are squishy and hard to define things. Some things are well known, but undefinable. I have yet to read a satisfactory definition of "cookie", I mean the little (except when they are big) baked good (except when they aren't baked) that are generally round (except when they aren't) and not the things web browsers store. Most definitions leave out one or more things on common grocery store shelves. I disagree that we can't strive for precision in technical discourse. Programming languages have precise meaning and are executed precisely by a machine. As an industry we are still working to define what these machine can really do to help along precise definitions can aid in communication complex topics. We could not have loops or recursion if simpler construct like conditions, jumps, gotos, variables and others did not have precise definitions. It does seem that this, how humans approach problems with these two kinds of problem decomposition, is close to the boundary of natural and machine language. This might rule it out from precise definition, but it seems to be worth a try to me.