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

by RaichuKFM @, Northeastern Ohio, Wednesday, November 15, 2017, 17:53 (493 days ago) @ Funkmon

Let me try again.

Put aside the implications of saying "I am inside" versus "I am in" for a moment. Because I agree with you, largely.

My contention by saying they mean the same thing is rather that the state of being in a space, and the state of being inside a space, are identical, regardless of how physical the boundaries of the space are.

The way you express that state varies on context and semantic baggage. "I am in the mountains" probably sounds like "I'm in this mountainous area", while "I am inside the mountains" might sound like you are inside the big rock formation itself. But if you arein a cave inside a mountain, you are in that mountain, and inside that mountain. As a matter of fact. Right?

So, I think we agree, there is no class of spaces that you can be in, but not inside of. That's just incoherent, right?

So it depends on implications and semantics; while the nature of the space impacts that, it doesn't categorically limit it.

"Hey! Have you made it out yet?" "No! I'm still inside!"

I hope we can all agree that that's valid, right? Even though "it" could be any space imaginable?

That was my main point.

The rest was faffing about and poorly communicating it, and accidentally implying I'm very nonstandard, when I'm actually just a little nonstandard and not thrown by this one difference when others use it.

I hope I got myself across this time, else I'm giving up.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread