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

by Funkmon , Wednesday, November 15, 2017, 15:58 (2575 days ago) @ RaichuKFM

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.

I'm in Michigan.

I'm inside Michigan.

In normal use, without context, inside Michigan means you've just entered the state recently, or are in the borders and that's surprising. In Michigan implies nothing. Hence, the sets are not equal.

As I have said previously, you literally acknowledge the difference between them, in explaining why you say "inside." You do this. You can argue it all you want, that inside is identical to in, but you yourself show it to not be true.

In this example, all things that are inside are in, but if I have no reason to leave the state and haven't left for 10 years, then saying "inside" is misleading my interlocutor. You know this.

Do not argue logic to this, it's pointless. In much the same way you might say "my daughter's mother" to refer to a person with whom you have a child but almost zero connection with otherwise, you would not say it to refer to your wife. You would say wife. Saying "my daughter's mother" implies extra stuff. Even if we restrict the context to just your wife, saying something that's technically true, like my daughter's mother, and your wife, which, again, because of context can never not equal one another. However, if you say "my daughter's mother," you're implying some kind of very close relationship between them in a story you're about to tell, even though they always, 100% of the time, refer to your wife. There's a semantic difference.

This semantic difference goes into Grice's conversational maxims, and your interlocutor assumes something about it. These are not English conventions. These are universal semantic maxims, observed in every language among those who wish to share information. They can be broken, but either knowingly or by someone who is difficult to speak to.

Example, exaggerated:

"Hey dad, how did the Tigers do?"

"Grass is green."

Ostensibly, these have nothing to do with one another, but I, as a human, assume my father is following these maxims, and he is trying to tell me something. Is the grass green because the outfielders barely had to move and Boyd threw a no hitter? Maybe it was a rainout and now the grass is greener. I have to think about what he could mean by that because I assume he is giving me relevant information. This happens.

Example:

"Hey dad, where are you?"

"I'm inside the bathroom."

I wonder what he's doing.

"Hey dad, where are you?"

"I'm in the bathroom."

I can assume what he's doing.

As you demonstrably know, inside means you've recently arrived, are within confines, or are in there surprisingly. In means nothing. I assume it's routine.

"Hey dad, where are you?"

"I'm inside the USA"

"What? Where were you?"

He just arrived, is what I'm reading into this.

"Hey dad, where are you?"

"I'm in the USA."

"Thanks, dick."

He's being a dick.

Again, I agree with your usage in the raid case, but trying to say they're the same when you obviously know they aren't doesn't work.

Just because you can say one to mean the other, technically, doesn't mean they are practically the same, and your interlocutor will draw conclusions based on your words. It's how you think you can lie to your mom when you're a kid. "Did you eat all the cookies?" "I had one." Yes, it's technically true, but you're deliberately obfuscating that you indeed did eat all the cookies, relying on Grice to let your mother assume that you only at one of the cookie. Then, when you get smacked for lying, you even convince yourself "but I didn't lie!" You did and you know it.

In the same way, you literally show the two words are different in your explanations but are arguing that they can technically be the same.