[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

Damn english teachers and their false teachings

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

I looked at the part of the definiton where it summarizes the rest of it with a synonym

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.

You never see something like (this definition obviously made up)
"Human:
Fits under category homosapien;mammal"

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

Maybe not exactly, but it was implied that what i said wasn't within flexibility

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.

Implying that what you said should be in that flexibility

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.

Similar to "to subject to"

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.

read all of the definition before deciding I am wrong

Go away and learn English before debating on such matters.

Only mistake i've made here is improper wording

Oh, is that all?

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.

What i said suits the purpose of the post

Making sense wasn't part of your purpose?

Saying it affects pnly one object

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.

I thought you said the conflicting definition was "have"

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.

the cause of the disagreement is that i say have can mean the definiton i posted

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

youhave been saying it must be purely on the context

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