I not sure if you are just trolling here, but reading the article it seems clear that the author has a point beyond the usual signifier-signified semiotic cris

I not sure if you are just trolling here, but reading the article it seems clear that the author has a point beyond the usual signifier-signified semiotic crisis. The author ends by musing about mental diseases being described by coordinates in several dimensions. Sure, perhaps connected regions of that space can be given their own names, but in general, the author believes that our vocabulary lacks the granularity to identify the fingerprint of individual diseases. I know a lot of hands have already been wrung over the ineffectiveness of natural language in describing the phenomena of the inner world, but in a clinical setting this takes on a new meaning, and the essay is, in my opinion, poignant.