hey that insult is awesome man, be quiet!

On the contrary, it doesn't even make sense. If I had a dollar for every brain that isn't in your possession, I would have approximately six billion dollars. This value would not vary if we were to make the intuitive discovery that you don't have one.

Haha, that's great. :cool:

A lot of people think that's what the insult means, but only the smart people (Yes in my school only me and a few of my friends actually GET this insult) realize by "every brain you didn't have", it is saying, every brain you're missing (as in it isn't in your possession and should be). I forgive your ignorance, but don't let it happen again ;).

I have a very strong feeling your about to get owned by Kai, yet again. >_<

very few people realize my argumentive talents :)

Then a lot of people are right. You can't just redefine whole segments of the English language and invent equivalence where none exists. It's easy to see what the 'insult' is supposed to mean, but you failed to articulate that meaning properly.

I don't think any argumentative talents matter when you're wrong.
(unless you're arguing with a second grader, in which case I pity you)

No, just a lot of people aren't smart. If you look at the way it's worded, you can define it anyway the english langauge would allow, one way being how I said it is, and the creator decides which one is correct. Therefore, the argument IS valid because the way i interpreted it is allowable by the English langauge, and is how the creator meant it.

Are you sure you know what 'define' means? See, this is why you should not consider yourself an authority on the English language.

This isn't a matter of choosing one of numerous equally-weighted possibilities. In our case we have two possible interpretations. One assumes proper use of language, and is non-functional as an insult, and the other requires us to loosen our foci almost to the point of dissolution.

In other words: Being the author of a statement doesn't mean you can spool gibberish and blame other people if they point out your semantic errors.

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.