Circular semantic reference is all right if you agree that a symbol is not a sign which redirects to its meaning as to something separate, rather, it is a system where sign and meaning exist simultaneously.

Dictionary lemmas are not definitions, they are descriptions.

Dictionaries are not authority for word definitions. They are intended to be guides for a language not the law for word usage. Human beings must rely on the context of the words used to get the meaning of the communication. There are times when understanding the words just make the communication easier to express and faster once both parties know the context one usually mentions. Every subject matter can use the same word with a different context. Marines use words other Marines know the context of so they don't need a dictionary. Context is most important with or without dictionaries.

If natural languages are meaningless, why are you asking here ?

That's why natural languages are not context-free. They have undefinables.

Dictionary definitions don't exhaustively define every word, they describe words using terms that the competent reader already knows. We can only use words we know to talk about language. Plus, our brain doesn't process meaning by individually searching each word in a text in the dictionary. We infer meaning from context and from what we already know. If you treated language like a naive program, which simply looked up each word ad infinitum in order to understand language, of course it would never know anything, because it never had any knowledge to begin with. We do.

Not all definitions lead to infinite loops. I suggest that most do not. Which alone eliminates meaninglessness.

Why would a mathematical language, which fits your problem description in exactly the same way, be any different?

By contradiction : since natural languages have meaning (they are used to communicate), one of the premises must be wrong. Either words are not "defined" in terms of other words in dictionaries, or a dictionary is not a consistent logical system.

"A dictionary, sometimes known as a wordbook, is a collection of words in one or more specific languages, often arranged alphabetically, which may include information on definitions, usage, etymologies, pronunciations, translation, etc. or a book of words in one language with their equivalents in another, sometimes known as a lexicon."

No, snakes don't have scales.

What does "meaningless" mean in this context?

Before making rash claims, provide evidence -- in this case, evidence of a definition loop.

@CarlWitthoft, that's not hard thing to do, you can do it by yourself. Take any word from dictionary, take it's definition, then replace words used in definition by their definitions, repeat and then see that the word you already try to get rid will be used in some definition.

Since words are defined in terms of other words in dictionaries No, that's not necessary. I can define 'table' by pointing to a table.

This is not just a dictionary problem: "If it is asked how any knowledge is known to be true, proof may be provided. Yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen trilemma is that there are only three options when providing proof in this situation: The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts" en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma

You are making a questionable assumption: that defining words in terms of other words necessarily leads to infinite loops. Dictionaries try to avoid that, and define words in terms of more basic words.

You would benefit greatly by studying the subject of Word Clearing, which is properly defined as "the subject and action of clearing away the ignorance, misunderstoods and false definitions of words and the barriers to their use."

You should look at truth-conditional semantics which is a commonly accepted approach to meaning in formal linguistics. As Keelan said, dictionaries are not tomes that create meaning, they are tools that assist in describing how words are used.

We use ostensive definitions to avoid this problem. A dictionary cannot do this so is self-referential and ends up eating its own tail. .

@Not_Here: Basically tried to purge them using the automatic deletion, went wrong, was on my mobile, didn't work out. Not really deliberate action here

@PhilipKlöcking fair enough!