I really like some of the things Fisherman wrote about 441 being like a word and needing a sentence, a poem etc to express a meaning.
I think it is a good exercise when thinking about your question (can a juggling trick, such as 441 have inherent meaning) to replace "juggling trick" with a basic element of any other form of communication, in case of Fisherman's example-language.
So, can one word have meaning? Sure, and perhaps it's sometime a deep meaning, like for example the word "revolution". But the meaning that exists there, is because of a commonly understood historical context in connection to the word (which is not so common in case of 441). Even then, if i just saw "revolution" written on a wall without any other words next to it, i might see different meaning based on my political beliefs, or i might interpret it as a meaningless scribble of a 14 year old.
So if we reshape the question to sound "can a very small element of a language have inherent meaning or is the meaning created by the interpreter", it is my personal strong opinion, that the second answer is true. Furthermore-that there is no communication without context (in fact I would go further to say that NO language has an "inherent" meaning. French has meaning for French speakers, but not for anyone else, etc).
As a communicator , it's kinda your responsibility to form the context in such a way that your audience of choice would "get" what you're trying to say, and still you must be ready that your message will not be interpreted 100 percent as you intended, because yr audience already brings a bunch of widely different personal contexts together with them. Eric and Maurizio already made some points about that.
(of course if your message is simply "look what i can do, this is pretty cool'', then you have less problems because that's pretty simple to communicate to an audience)
Stepping back from the example of "words" though, I would like to address the question that keeps being raised in this and other discussions-whether juggling is an easy or complicated way to communicate.
I would agree with, for example, Maurizio in saying it's much more complicated and open to interpretation in comparison to, say a verbal language.
However, since I do happen to view juggling as an art I am very happy to compare it to other arts, such as dance.
To my mind, dance is quite similar to juggling as a language-it is comprised of separate movements or "tricks" that have little meaning until connected into a phrase,and then even more meaning is gained when the phrases are connected into a piece. The piece might be more straightforward and focused on technique and a certain aesthetic (such as competitive ballroom dance routine) OR it could be created with complex messages in mind,but remain quite open to different interpretations from a curious and analytic audience (such as contemporary dance performance).
I think the analogies you could make to juggling are quite clear here. In fact i prefer dance or music,rather than verbal communication as a comparison to juggling. It clears up a lot of questions to my mind, because it reminds me that languages are not the same, they have different purposes and different capabilities, and it's good to choose a language in accordance to the kind of thing i want to say. Within my view of juggling, i would say that you can communicate similar things with, say, a trumpet as you would with three balls. But both those tools of communication might not be the best when you want to communicate a medical diagnosis, or a series of sociological statistics.