?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
12 August 2009 @ 05:40 pm
Hypothetical question (in that the relevant conversation took place probably 10 years ago)  
Suppose someone writes something in a public forum. Anything, it doesn't really matter.

Suppose I respond by saying, "That's kind of ambiguous. I think you mean XYZ, but it could also mean UVW or even RST. Could you clarify, please?"

Suppose the person did mean XYZ.

Is that person justified in saying, "If you understood I meant XYZ, the original statement was not ambiguous and you're just showing off"?
 
 
Current Mood: curiouscurious
 
 
 
gh4acws on August 12th, 2009 10:26 pm (UTC)
all natural languages
are ambiguous.
New-speak is not.
I believe that the ambiguity is the strength of language - enabling us to talk about the (yet ) undefined and vague.

On the other hand I have no clue how ambiguous the original statement was.
Even simple statements can be. " Earth is flat"
1. true belief
2. Ironic
3. locally true ( in Kansas or Cologne )