Locke-ing in the Signification

In his Essay on Human Understanding, Locke is proposing that our language allows for too many interpretations and readings that even our words themselves are susceptible for mistaken signification. He argues that because oftentimes our words have no set signification, every idea we seek to convey is limited by our inefficiency of language.
The leading concept I take away from this theory is the fallacy of man. Locke spends entire chapters describing the flaws to men's words and our inability to even convey ideas to one another.

Is our interpretation always our own then? By that I mean, when I interpret and digest the words of others, am I fully understanding them, or is my mind missing the essence of what is being said?

My personal beliefs would argue that despite what Locke has to say about the deeply rooted concern of misinterpretation, one can absolutely form a coherent and complex thought that others are fully capable of understanding. Although Locke points out how the framework of our language has no set standards, the usage and power of words changes in every concept, and is undergoing constant evolution as time progresses.
Nowadays we have words that literally mean nothing, as well as words that serve as an headliner for an entire conglomerate of ideas.
In chapter 10, on the Abuse of Words, Locke states that in forming complex ideas, "this man is hindered in his discourse, for want of words to communicate his complex ideas, which he is therefore forced to make known by an enumeration of the simple ones that compose them; and so is fain often to use twenty words, to express what another man signifies in one" (826).
But couldn't Locke simply have said, "our language is wordy and inefficient"? Instead he demonstrates the exact fallacy upon which he writes, using an entire paragraph to outline one specific instance of word complexity.
The introduction to Locke's excerpt writes, "Locke believes that there is a real external world and that knowledge of it is possible, but only if we understand the processes by which we come to such knowledge" (814). It's possible that in his time, Locke feared what a philosopher must fear most, the loss of knowledge. His entire section on the complexity of words is an attempt to show how directly misinterpretation falls upon controversy and even human conflict.
My consolation to the issue he lays before us, is that as a class of students born in the 20th century, we are able to read, contemplate, and actively consider many different interpretations of this 17th century text. Not only are we exploring ideas much older than we are, but we're also discussing them and finding ways to relate through our own experiences. These words were written more than 300 years ago, yet we are educating ourselves with them.
That, if anything, is the power of words.