First of all, a mod should split this thread.

Of course I do. Defining means to give a meaning to it. Defining a sentence means explaining what it means. I don't consider myself an authority, I just know what I am talking about.

You are insulting my English abilities? Let's take the insult:
Of course, the first way most people will look at that is for every brain you don't own. But by taking other meanings for words, ones that are EQUALLY correct, like have, changing the meaning (properly, the definitions of the words allow it) of "every brain you didn't have", and meaning Every brain you are missing (since didn't have can mean are missing, i checked with several english teachers and 2 thesaurasus'), it would mean:

"If I had a dollar for every brain you are missing, I would have one dollar"

Which in a different order would basically mean

You are missing a brain, which in common langauge means you don't have a brain in your possession, the creator's meaning for the insult becomes correct. (The lengthy explanation isn't usually needed, Kaimetsu is just argumentive so i need it)

In other words: A sentence's meaning depends on how you look at the words.

Splitting threads is done when two distinct disscussions are taking place, not when the initial discussion has been finished and another has taken it's place.
Try saying that instead of the seemingly ambiguous one.

No, not really. It's impossible to define a sentence; it's just a composite of individually-defined items.

Obviously. Are you going to claim that you are more skilled with the language than I?

At its core, this isn't even a matter of semantics - it's more an issue of logic. But if you really want to take that route then fine. You just have to present me with a dictionary entry for 'have' that is equivalent to 'own, where the scope of objects is limited to those standardly found within the skull of an average member of the same group as the owner'.

Of course it does. But all language has a finite degree of flexibility, or it becomes useless. Poor articulation cannot simply be blamed on the reader.

Are you kidding me? The definition of a sentence would BE the definition of all the words therein put together into a single meaning. But this isn't important and doesn't really matter in this debate.
Well since insulting is only done to someone who has no skill or quality in that area, and you don't realize this then yes.

The scope there isnt limited to a single person's skull, but it shows my interpretation to be valid.

Yes, and that degree of flexibility would include a different definition for the same word, so my insult is therefor valid. I agree that the reader shouldn't be blamed for their first thought about it, but if the sentence is correct in literary terms, then they can be blamed for not finding other definitions.


EDIT: More evidence my version is valid, just read the second definitiopn after i posted:
There, it shows it is talking about one thing, so this would be the proper definition i would be using.

No, I am educating you. Sentences are not defined. To suggest otherwise belies a deep failure to understand the concept of definitions.

You seem confused. Insults can be directed at any person, regardless of whatever skills they may possess.

In any case, this kind of so-called realisation wouldn't have any relation to a person's ability to communicate in a language. As for being a better linguist than me? Laughable. Please report to this URL.

No more than usual. The definition you gave does not satisfy the stated criteria; it is not equivalent to the one I specified. If it were used, the resulting interpretation of the 'insult' would not be the one you intended.

Same goes for the one in your hasty amendment.

This isn't even relevant until you show that our disagreement stems from conflicting definitions.

I think Falco is having a problem grasping the complexity of your education, Kai.
So I've made a book, Kai for Idiots.

Falco: He is referring to every brain on the planet. You don't own any of them. Population = 6 Billion
Funds = 6 Billion.
The wording in your sentence, says brain you don't have. There are 6 billion brains I don't possess. There are 6 million brains he doesn't possess. kthxbai.

Are you saying it isn't possible to explain a sentence? Again, you don't look at other definitions of a word, so you mess up.

The only thing laughable here is your argument skills. I meant an insult based on skills, not overal;l insults. You are making fun of my ability to use the english langauge, when obviously i comprehend and use it just fine. Perhaps I am not better than you at it, but if you think an insult holds any validity when targeted at someone that obviously doesn't have that feature you shouldn't even be in this argument at all, since it's over an insult.

Hardly. That is the exact definition I would need for the insult to make sense. Are you sure you read the definition i posted??

Ah pulling off a Lance. Our definitions are conflicting because you claim mine doesn't exist, therefore that makes it totally relevant.

I like how what falco thinks he's saying is different from what he is actually saying.

Dude, seriously, verbal articulation is a large part of communication. What you think you are saying may not be the same as what others think you are saying. What they think you are saying is the defining factor in communication, is it not? So I really do not see why you would venture to stand by your obviously misinterpreted (by way of intended meaning) phrase anyway.

P.S. How many <insert random object here> don't you have? <- how would you interpret this? It has no implied meaning, therefore the answer can only be the number of how many of that object is in existance. Not some arbitrary number of how many you would normally have (which is incorrect anyway since you still don't have any of the other existing objects).

No, because 'define' is not the same as 'explain' in this context. You are aware of the concept of context, yes?

If we wanted to work from dictionary definitions alone then we could quite easily argue that the word 'human' is equivalent to 'penguin', just by following a chain of approximations. But that's not how language is supposed to be used.

Still doesn't make any sense, bub. Anybody can insult anybody else based on any criteria they like. Your rule does not hold up.

I'd say I'm merely criticising it, in a situation where criticism is due and pertinent.

That is still up for debate.

Perhaps? Revisit the URL.

Incorrect. By that definition, it would equate to this:

There is precisely one brain that you do not own.

This is patently false. There are over six billion.

No, I hold that we are both working under the same definition for 'have'. You are simply misusing it.

First of all, as for the third party arguers, i have easily argued those points in other posts, don't waste my time. Now for Kai:

In the context i used when saying define the sentence, it couldn't mean anything but explain it (out of definitions given). The way you think you could make human be equal to penguin isn't true, as there is no possible chain to get to there.

You don't understand what I was saying, but otherwise, this matter is unimportant in the final outcome of this argument, so I won't even begin to argue here.

Well since criticism is based on opinion, and opinion means nothing at all in this type of argument, it means nothing. Let's forget this and move on.

Not really, depending on what you would mean by comprehension, and a common one would mean "understands it". I Understand English just fine, and could care less about your opinion in that matter.

I didn't even go there, I don't want to waste my time on what is most likely a pointless insult on your part.

Actually, by that definition, it would mean more like:

In the category of just you, You're missing one brain.

which in turn means:
You Don't have a brain.

You cannot decide what I am arguing. I am arguing over the definition. Anything you say would not matter since I choose my own thoughts and output.

But since that definition is invalid too, it was in fact meaningless.

Look, a sentence is not an atom. It is a string of irreducible lexigraphical symbols, the definitions of which determine the meaning of the whole. A sentence's meaning is derived purely from its composition; it cannot be imbued through some definitive process.

Hardly. From 'penguin', we get 'bird'. From 'bird' we get 'animal'. From 'human' we get 'mammal'. From 'mammal' we get 'animal'. If we're stupid enough to treat each relation as one of equivalence then we reach the aforementioned conclusion.

What a convincing counter-argument :rolleyes:

Aren't you the one arguing for flexible, subjective meaning?

You can comprehend all expressions of English? Also, my disagreement was with the claim that you can comprehend and use the language to a satisfactory level. Obviously, however, this standard is relative.

How saddening. You might have learned something.

You believe that 'to miss' and 'to not own' are equivalent?

Nor did I claim to. I can, however, determine relevance.

Kaimetsu. Why do you go into a bunch of threads and start arguments?

Because arguments are awesome.

It's rather annoying. Start a Graal Debate thread and stick to it :)

I agree, arguments=fun. Especially since this most likely won't end until one of us gets tired of it or a mod closes it.

That definition wasn't invalid, I got it off of an official dictionary, and quoted it, did you not see that? Define can eman explain, as the quote showed before, and you can explain a sentence. You are just too stubborn to look at things past what they seem to mean at first glance.


You may get those words, but you aren't looking at the full definition, I on the other hand, am.

Thanks :) lol


Find some way that criticism is defined as fact, like how i have shown you definitions, and I would consider it to be within flexibility.

No I can't understand every one of them, but i doubt you can either. The level that i comprehend and use it is sastifactory to a 10th grade level (probably higher looking at my peers), which means that my comprehension doesn't deem "Criticism"

Even using to own; "In the category of just you, you don't own one brain" would mean that you don't own a single brain within the category of yourself, which would be the same as You are missing a brain, since both imply that is just you that is being talked about. Don't make me hurl definitions of missing and such at you now ;).

relevance is in the eye of the beholder (look at Lance, he claims anything is irrelevant), and is basically opinion in that matter. What may appear relevant to one isn't relevant to another, therefore, your idea of what we are arguing has no effect on what I think we are arguing about.

That's what you think, thus the problem with arguing with self-deluded people such as yourself. Do try to read through and understand what is being said to you before you attempt to defy it.


You don't have to read this thread.. Although I agree, but for reasons other than what you seem to find annoying

I think you will get over it.

I thought you said you were capable of comprehending English? Context, man. Context. You gave two definitions. One is applicable to abstract concepts, such as words, whereas the other is geared towards the technically-incorrect process of defining real-world objects. A sentence is not a real-world object.

This from the guy that just plucked one word out of a dictionary definition in a vain attempt to support his case?

You're not even making sense here, man. "Within" flexibility? Flexibility is not a container. How is the definition of criticism even relevant? We are talking about the intersubjective meaning of written text.

Indeed. I am merely attempting to help you understand that these scales are relative. The descriptor "just fine" is individually meaningless.

Firstly, you don't know what 'deem' means. You probably should have used something like 'warrant'.
Secondly, you are not being judged relative to others of your age group. You are being judged relative to a hypothetical competent wordsmith - one that can confidently use and understand a relatively wide range of language without error.

That's kind of garbled, but okay. Your problem here is that you didn't specify scope in the original text.

Not really. Relevance is a conceptual relationship just like any other - one which can be established and defended if a debate requires it. It occasionally dips into subjectivity, but only because of the alogical nature of human thought.

Point: If you cannot make any chain of logical relations between the original subject and the one you're discussing, it can be said that you are deviating from relevance. I hereby make the challenge.

I love this paragraph. I really do.

It is also worth noting, falco of the many numbers, that you should not accuse Kai of 'pulling a Lance'. Unless, of course, 'pulling a Lance' means 'using logic', in which case I feel fairly awesome.

I saw its annoying because when I read a thread, there is usually some information that appeals to me. I would rather see peoples input on topics rather than people yelling at each other over everything.

Yes, two definitions, one of which works. Context is how the reader looks at it. That same context can be changed if said reader looks at the sentence differently. Stressing parts of the words or reading at a different pace can make the context look a whole lot different.

No, i took the whole definition. For one who claims to understand english so well, you should have seen that.

I agree i worded that wrong, but you can see what I amm getting at. You are the one who stated that the flexibility didn't extend to what i had, meaning that it would have to be a defined space. ALso, stop only looking at that post, and take into account what you and me have put in previous ones. YOU started talking about criticism, YOU
are the one who talked about how what you said was flexible:
As seen above. Once you say something, it doesn't justwash away and any response from there become irrelevant, it sticks.

In that context, deem meant "to subject to", which is a valid definition of it. Aren't you the one arguing about context?
Secondly, if being compared to saiud wordmith, I still am not so low as to be criticized. My range of the english langauge is above average (for EVERYONE), and my usage very rarely contains any errors (unless you count spelling for quick typing, hehe).

What I was saying by that, is what it means if you use the proper definitions for what is implied by it.

"If I had a dollar for every brain you didn't have, I'd have one dollar" becomes equal or acceptebly similar in this way:
First: didn't have:
based on earlier definitions and argument it can be turned into "(In the category of just you) you don't own", making the insult

"If I had a dollar for every brain (in the category of just you) that you don't own, I would have one dollar."

By taking the if I had a dollar.....I'd have one dollar, it makes the if statement true, making the insult:
"(In the category of just you) you don't own one brain",
which taking parentheses out and replacing with a comma afterwards makes it:
"In the category of just you, you don't own one brain"


Therefore, my insult makes sense if it's looked at the correct way.
I can, I said that i was arguing the definition of have, and you said i wasn't. You said i wasn't because what i said was relevant to that argument. But looking at everything i put in,like the definitions and such, I was obviously arguing over how you would look at have, and which definition to use.

No it isn't.

Are you sure? It seems to me that you fixated on one of the words in one of the descriptions - the word 'explain' - and ignored all else.

Wow, an admission of fallibility? Perhaps I am making progress.

I did not.

I cited my text as an example thereof. But we moved on from there, and you evidently didn't keep pace. The definition of criticism is not relevant to the discussion over how meaningful my comments are.

Incorrect. I asked you a simple question about flexible, subjective meaning. These two things are not equivalent.

1) No it isn't.
2) Your sentence wouldn't make sense even if you did choose to invoke your imaginary definition.

I think this entire discussion stands as testament to the inaccuracy of those claims.

Do you think you can realistically call this a well-constructed sentence?

You are not listening. From whence comes this restriction of scope?

No. Learn to read. I said that the disagreement did not stem from conflicting definitions, which is true. We apparently agree on the definition 'to own', but you insist on inserting some specification of scope somewhere between defining the term and using it. This is the cause of the disagreement.

*Look at definition of it* Damn english teachers and their false teachings >=O

I looked at the part of the definiton where it summarizes the rest of it with a synonym. You never see something like (this definition obviously made up)
"Human:
Fits under category homosapien;mammal"
And then
"Mammal:
Warm blooded life form;animal."
Ect.
Maybe not exactly, but it was implied that what i said wasn't within flexibility.

Whatever, but i agree the definition of criticism is irrelevant to the overall conversation, so let's end that argument.

Implying that what you said should be in that flexibility.

Similar to "to subject to" (So it doesn't say subject to, but to sentence is a sunonym to that), which works since you subjected what i said to criticism. read all of the definition before deciding I am wrong. Since deem has above definition, the context thus shows that you are wrong:
Implying that you are subjecting my comprehension to criticism.
Only mistake i've made here is improper wording, caused becase i rushed most of my arguments, since i am simultaneously doing homework when on the forums. Still, such a minor mistake usually won't influence the person's comprehension of what i said much, since the person knows what I am getting at if they were paying attention.
Doesn't look like that with your wuote only, but with the rest of that post and my quote of you there, it suits the purpose. I am not out to impress people with fancy word uage, i am arguing here like i would in a rl conversation, and am not going to change my ways to show you i can contruct a sentence better than that. Summary: What i said suits the purpose of the post, and doesn't need to be made better because you wouldn't say it like that.
Saying it affects pnly one object, and would be the definition used in that insult. Please don't make me quote quotes, go back and read when i say based on earlier definitions if you forgot what i put.
I thought you said the conflicting definition was "have". Surely i shouldn't rely on you to explain what an argument is when you aren't even consistent. Also, the cause of the disagreement is that i say have can mean the definiton i posted, and youhave been saying it must be purely on the context. That is the argument.

Didn't you earlier refer to your teachers as authorities on English? I seem to remember you claiming that they had validated your 'insult'.

You looked at the half of the entry that wasn't applicable to abstract concepts, and you mistakedly identified one of the items as a synonym. There are no real synonyms in English, and dictionary definitions certainly don't seek to provide them. All a dictionary can do is give an approximation to a word's meaning. Usually this is through listing a number of similar aspects, and the reader is expected to find the midpoint of them all. You, instead, chose one word that suited you and ignored all others.

I think it would be quite easy to find a dictionary definition that refers to humans as mammals.

Again, flexibility isn't a container. I said nothing about flexibility being 'extended'. I simply stated that languages are flexible, but to a finite degree.

Again, flexibility is not a container. Not a container.

I suggested that the interpretation of my words - and meaning attached thereto - is flexible in that it is by nature subjective. This is not the same as your version.

Hardly! To deem is a personal, internal process. To make somebody the subject of some process is by nature interpersonal. The two are completely separate.

Go away and learn English before debating on such matters.

Oh, is that all? :rolleyes:

That alone would be enough to support my criticism, but you've also misrepresented various words and shown a complete lack of understanding of the discipline of semantics.

Making sense wasn't part of your purpose?

And how many definitions did you have to trawl through to find that? You still have no idea how words work. The different definitions correspond to different ways of using the words, not different ways to present them in arguments. The one you quoted is for saying things like 'I have a cold' and nothing else.

Gack. You truly are a stupid child.

1) I maintain, still, that there is no conflict of definitions.
2) If there were, it would be over the definition of 'have'. But I said that we agreed on one particular definition and I identified it as 'to own'. There is no conflict here but that which you invent in your confused little brain.

No, the cause of the disagreement is your failure to understand the definition posted.

Evidently you haven't even understood what I've been saying.

I do not think this thread is a good thread.