Flag problems?

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

Yes, two definitions, one of which works. Context is how the reader looks at it

No it isn't.

No, i took the whole definition

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.

I agree i worded that wrong

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

You are the one who stated that the flexibility didn't extend to what i had

I did not.

YOU started talking about criticism

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.

YOU are the one who talked about how what you said was flexible

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

In that context, deem meant "to subject to", which is a valid definition

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

Secondly, if being compared to saiud wordmith, I still am not so low as to be criticized [...]
my usage very rarely contains any errors

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

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

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

based on earlier definitions and argument it can be turned into "(In the category of just you) you don't own"

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

I can, I said that i was arguing the definition of have, and you said i wasn't

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.

[falco10291029]

No it isn't.

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

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

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.

I did not.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

Implying that what you said should be in that flexibility.

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

1. To decide; to judge; to sentence; to condemn.

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:

which means that my comprehension doesn't deem "Criticism"

Implying that you are subjecting my comprehension to criticism.

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

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.

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

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.

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

based on earlier definitions

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

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[Loriel]

I do not think this thread is a good thread.