If words weren't misinterpreted, why would we communicate?

After a few pages on Locke I couldn’t help but ask myself what he means by complex ideas not being universal?

Locke clearly stated the line before that complex ideas were in fact formed by “connections among simple ideas.” If that is in fact true why aren’t complex ideas universal?

Anyone in fact could create a complex idea, but what Locke misses is the context he places his belief of a complex idea. There must something that signifies an idea is complex, when in reality joining simple ideas is rather (simple) and could be everything that occurs naturally. To Locke’s definition, in reality the connections of simple activities could be considered complex.

To expand upon this when page 817 talks about the imperfection of words, both civil and philosophical I want to ask how he can come to the conclusion I listed above. That complex ideas aren’t quite simple and universal, and there is more than just an imperfection of words that proves as another disconnect for people.

Examining imperfection of words themselves, consider each has a meaning in context. Their meaning is both explicit and implicit. Therefore underlying ideas either simple or complex should not be considered easy or difficult, universal or not, but natural. If we make our own definition through the constant communication of words than the building blocks of creating a complex ideas would be impossible not to attain through speaking. Everyone does it on a certain level whether it be in the form of reading. One is taught to read a book left to right and down. From there one is reading whether it is comprehensively or not, that person used two simple ideas and made them complex jointly. The words aren’t the problem; everyone can perceive their own language and build upon ideas. If there were no disconnect, people wouldn’t be able to communicate because there would be no reason to. Nobody would have the need to question and would inherently become silent.