[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

In the context i used when saying define the sentence, it couldn't mean anything but explain it

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.

The way you think you could make human be equal to penguin isn't true

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.

You don't understand what I was saying

What a convincing counter-argument

since criticism is based on opinion, and opinion means nothing at all in this type of argument, it means nothing

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

Not really, depending on what you would mean by comprehension

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.

I didn't even go there

How saddening. You might have learned something.

by that definition, it would mean more like:

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

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

You cannot decide what I am arguing

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