Flag problems?

[falco10291029]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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'.

have
1. To hold in possession or control; to own;

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

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

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:

2. To possess, as something which appertains to, is connected with, or affects, one.

There, it shows it is talking about one thing, so this would be the proper definition i would be using.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

Are you kidding me?

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

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

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.

There, happy?

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.

that degree of flexibility would include a different definition for the same word

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