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

by Funkmon @, Wednesday, November 15, 2017, 18:42 (2294 days ago) @ RaichuKFM

So it depends on implications and semantics;

Yes, we're literally arguing over semantics, which is fun. Normally when people say "we're arguing over semantics," it's usually people quoting dictionaries at each other, then realizing they agree. Of course, this entire argument is based on semantics, which is fun.

You're making an argument that is immaterial. It doesn't matter about what you're asserting is technically true, and it isn't semantic baggage, it's actual meaning.

No, no physical spaces can you be in, but not inside of. In much the same way, reusing an example from last time, you have no wives who aren't mothers of your children. But they mean differently.

One is more specific. One implies you're inside the cave. The set of all things that mean inside (which is probably how I should have written it before) is a strict subset of the things which mean in.

If you told me "oh I'm in the mountains" and I found out you were spelunking, I would consider that hiding the truth. I would ask why you didn't tell me that. If you told me "I'm inside the mountains," I would ask, first thing if you were in a cave, playfully making fun of you for using an awkward construction which has only one context independent meaning.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread