Symbolism in saying that a grove, in the agitation of a storm, cannot be delineated from its picture in water

Question

In the book The Information - A History, A Theory, A Flood by James Gleick, there is a portion of text which speaks about the gradually increasing meanings/senses attached to verbs like go, make, take etc. And the corresponding challenges a dictionary faces in attempting to capture all those meanings. While presenting this point, Samuel Johnson, a prominent lexicographer, has been quoted. I did not understand one symbolism used in that quotation. Below is the quotation -

My labor has likewise been much increased by a class of verbs too frequent in the English language, of which the signification is so loose and general, the use so vague and indeterminate, and the senses detorted so widely from the first idea, that it is hard to trace them through the maze of variation, to catch them on the brink of utter inanity, to circumscribe them by any limitations, or interpret them by any words of distinct and settled meaning; such are bear, break, come, cast, full, get, give, do, put, set, go, run, make, take, turn, throw. If of these the whole power is not accurately delivered, it must be remembered, that while our language is yet living, and variable by the caprice of every one that speaks it, these words are hourly shifting their relations, and can no more be ascertained in a dictionary, than a grove, in the agitation of a storm, can be accurately delineated from its picture in the water.

From the structure of the sentences, I guess, that Samuel Johnson wants to say - it is very hard to capture, in a dictionary, the ever-changing senses in which these verbs are used. But I am not getting the imagery implied by the phrase "a grove, in the agitation of a storm, can be accurately delineated from its picture in the water". And subsequently, how it can be compared to the difficulty with these verbs.

P.S.: Would be better to get an answer that helps imagine the scene, and thereby draw the parallel with the metaphor.

Answer 1

You're correct, Dr Johnson is saying that the meaning of common words such as "bear" or "run" is constantly evolving, such that trying to pin their meaning down in a dictionary is futile. To convey this, he uses the metaphor of a grove reflected in a pool. When there's a storm, the reflection in the pool cannot provide an accurate picture of what the grove looks like, because both the grove and the pool are moving too violently.

It's easy to see that the storm-racked grove symbolizes the meanings of such words. It's also easy to think of the dictionary as a pool that reflects the meanings. Perhaps what makes this metaphor puzzling is that it's hard to see how the dictionary is itself agitated. Isn't it a static object?

The explanation is in the preceding sentences, where Johnson describes the labor involved in trying to capture the meaning of such words:

to trace them through the maze of variation, to catch them on the brink of utter inanity, to circumscribe them by any limitations, or interpret them by any words of distinct and settled meaning.

This labor is impossible to complete, as such words will continue to evolve new meanings as long as we continue to speak the language. The lexicographical task involved with such words is thus constantly in flux, just as the words themselves are. Consequently, any set of meanings given in the dictionary will be partial and unsatisfactory, like the picture one would get of a grove in a pool during a storm.