This is the 3rd time I've seen this claim, and I love it every time. Every god damn time. Really we need to make this sticky. If not this claim, then one of the other two that say the same thing.
Deciding on the voter's point of view as a standard (which most jyters tend to adopt, but that's no sufficient excuse) is more versatile than deciding all claims should be external facts.
If you decide that "I have a cat" means "the claimer has a cat", how would you say "the voter has a cat" (and turn the vote into a mini-poll)?
If you decide like I (and most jyters) do, that "I have a cat" means "the voter", and "Jimmy has a cat" means "The Jimmy", there's no problem.
Discussion (7)
This is the 3rd time I've seen this claim, and I love it every time. Every god damn time. Really we need to make this sticky. If not this claim, then one of the other two that say the same thing.
Mine's better, though. Got a picture.
You make a compelling argument.
D'A
however, in order to be expressly better, it should also be tagged "culture", "claim", and "pronoun"
Claims inspired by this comment
Vynce is the jyte tag police.Thanks, vynce
I don't think Jyte is a good place to *vote* on things.
I think agreeing with a claim is giving one's support of an external fact, not a subjective vote with a changing referent.
Deciding on the voter's point of view as a standard (which most jyters tend to adopt, but that's no sufficient excuse) is more versatile than deciding all claims should be external facts.
If you decide that "I have a cat" means "the claimer has a cat", how would you say "the voter has a cat" (and turn the vote into a mini-poll)?
If you decide like I (and most jyters) do, that "I have a cat" means "the voter", and "Jimmy has a cat" means "The Jimmy", there's no problem.
Feel free to change your vote :)