Useless argument. WARNING: basic semantic theory inside (Recruitment)

by RaichuKFM , Northeastern Ohio, Wednesday, November 15, 2017, 13:06 (2353 days ago) @ Funkmon

Actually I think as follows:

The set of all things that are in, is not the same as the set of all things that are inside.

However,

The set of all things that are in a space, by contrast, is.

You cannot be in an area, without necessitating that that area have an in, an out; by virtue of being an area with an in, and an out, there is a boundary or boundaries, of some sort; by virtue of having a boundary, you can then refer to that portion of area as a shape, and thus that portion of which is in can be termed a side of a shape, and in, thus inside. That portion that can be

If I said I walk "in the forest", this would mean "inside the forest", although it could unlikely be taken to mean "into the forest". If I say I walk "out of the forest", it means I left it. I could say I walk "outside the forest", although that does kind of run into the same problem. I would solve this with saying I "walk around, outside of the forest", although there might be a more optimal solution.

But a bad mood is not an area, not a space, so if I was to say I was "inside a bad mood", it would be weird, because it doesn't really make sense.

"But Raichu, it's-"

Look, here's my point. My entire point. The whole point.

It is logically correct by utter necessity in terms of denotation of the words, to say you are inside a space, whenever you are in that space, for any real, physical space.

It can be clumsy in terms of connotation, however, in certain contexts.

But now, moving with this proof,

And shifting the conversational context to one in which "I'm inside!" predominates over "I'm in!", it is suddenly normal to say inside, and it should carry no ambiguity, if there is no ambiguity about the space being referred to and the boundaries of that space.

And if there were those ambiguities, "I'm in!" would run into an identical problem.

And that's my problem with this argument, basically.

It's everyone taking a bunch of examples where inside is clunky and going "There! Look, there! You're not talking like a native English speaker!" When my point is that these are just cases where inside is logically true. To demonstrate that it's not a matter of some list of types of spaces you can be in but not inside of. It's that some words we just want to say in, because of turns of phrase and general habits of language, or whatever.

But when you shift things into a context where inside is more natural, like referring to which part of a boundary you happen to be on, like the context in the Raid, it suddenly becomes completely normal to say inside.

That's where I was saying it was normal to say it!

Which was pointless, because in that part of the Raid it's unhelpful, but my whole point was saying that because it makes sense for both, it's unhelpful. If I was wrong, then one might be able to predominate, the convention that "inside" refers to the Throne Room; but look! Look at the strongest evidence here! It hasn't.

Pointing out other places where it makes sense was just an attempt to correct people's apparent notions that there are spaces you can be in, but not inside of, which is an argument that doesn't make sense.

They were arguing that it's about boundaries. But any space you can be in or out of will have a boundary! It just has to! It might be as simple as a wall, or as arbitrary as a line on a map, or as strange as the case with the Shadow Realm- where you don't know the boundary, because the two areas don't seem to ever touch- but you must accept there is a boundary in some way to be saying in or out of.

Look, just.

Just give me one example where saying you're inside of something is wrong,

When that something is a space, area, location, or the like,

Where saying you're in that something is right,

When in refers to whether your location is in the area or not,

And not "into" or something silly like how people can take "coloring in the lines" to mean coloring over the lines, and not the spaces between the lines. (An ambiguity that I'll note "coloring inside the lines" doesn't have, because, used correctly and barring accidentally bridging into figures of speech or turns of phrase, inside will never be more ambiguous than in. "Raichu, the whole point is that by specifying this extra bit of context when you don't need to, you're-" Look. If you or anyone else sees this incredibly minor difference, that is, if anything, a little helpful, if clunky, and thinks "Wow this person has an inalienable difference in their entire approach to language and are out of step with English convention" and not "Huh, okay", then I think I've gone past the realm where it's my communication problem.)