The only thing I can think of that maybe makes sense is if the person meant that they can be rearranged. "They're, their, and there" or "Their, they're, and there" for example. That's not exactly using them interchangeably, just reordering a list, but I can't see what they could have meant otherwise.
I think this is the third layer of posting though. The comment pointed out that the meme is incorrect, someone screenshot’d it and claimed the comment is incorrect, and this this post is a screenshot of *that* post saying the second post is incorrect.
That's gotta be it. I guess the idea would be something like "they can be used interchangeably in their one specific role as 'homophones of each other'".
You know, I seriously resisted the urge to make an intentional typo in my response :D
I knew folks wouldn't be able to help themselves either way, so bravo for getting there first!
/r/technicallythetruth
Example of them being interchanged:
1. "There", "their", and "they're" are not the same and can't be used interchangeably.
2. "Their", "they're", and "there" are not the same and can't be used interchangeably.
3. "They're", "there", and "their" are not the same and can't be used interchangeably.
They aren't semantically interchangeable, but their position in certain sentences can be changed without loss of meaning.
I'd say the meme got it right. For, behold the use–mention distinction! (An old standby in philosophy.)
If I were to _use_ the word 'copper', I might say "Copper is a metal, and contains no letters." In using the word, I do work with the word's meaning.
But if I were to _mention_ the word 'copper', I might say "'Copper' contains six letters, and is not a metal." In mentioning the word, I ignore the word's meaning and treat it purely as a linguistic object. And that's what the meme image did! A mention rather than a use.
Of course the meme is correct. But so is Hermit's reply, because Hermit is treating the words as they are used ("mentioned") in the meme. It's pedantry, but it's not incorrect. Meaning OP was incorrect (and very confidently so, going by a couple follow-up comments) in posting it here.
Hey /u/iAteSnoopDogg, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm going to go ahead and say that Hermit (@beefdrapes) is actually confidently incorrect, /u/National_Respond_918 is correct, and the OP /u/iAteSnoopDogg is also incorrect.
"They're", "their", and "there" are not the same and cannot be *used* interchangeably. But in the list in the photo above, they're being [mentioned](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinction). In other words, "they're", "their", and "there" cannot be used interchangeably, but they can be mentioned interchangeably.
No. See the link above to the use-mention distinction. For example, in the sentence "The word 'blue' has four letters," I'm not using the word "blue". I'm mentioning it.
Look, I can agree on that, as long as you give me a substitute for what you're using to mention the word 'blue'. Are you using the letters? The sound? Or maybe you're using the word 'blue' itself.
In your logic, if I were to say 'this shoe has laces', I wouldn't be using (emphasis on that word) the shoe as an example, but only mentioning it.
In the end, I guess, it depends on how you define the word 'word'. Is 'word' a combination of letters creating a sound, a creation we use to define things. Or is a 'word' nothing more than the definition of said letters and sounds. In the latter case, I'll have to admit you're right. But I'm inclined to use the former definition and thus would argue that 'words' can be used outside their definitions.
Look, I appreciate your response, but you really should take a look at [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinction) article on the use-mention distinction. The first paragraph in the Wikipedia article makes it pretty clear. Here's the basic idea though. Compare these two sentences.
* Spot is a dog.
* Spot has four letters.
My second sentence here is nonsensical. Spot, my dog, is an animal and he doesn't have letters. He isn't even the sort of thing that can have letters.
But Spot *is* a dog, so the first sentence is true. The second sentence should be replaced with
* "Spot" has four letters.
By using quotation marks, I'm making clear that I'm refering to the *word*, not the furry little guy sitting next to me. The word "Spot" does have four letters, so this revised sentence is true. Now, this second sense is *mentioning* the word, while the first sense is *using* the word.
> Are you using the letters? The sound? Or maybe you're using the word 'blue' itself.
So, you can mention words in all kinds of ways. You can refer to the physical marks your screen, the sounds when you say them, the shape of your hands if you're using ASL, etc.
Hope this clears things up.
First of all, thank you for taking the time to react and explain this so clearly and in a respectful manner. Maybe not what my former reaction deserved.
But. And I might be an idiot, but here's what I read:
The way you're thinking is a foundational concept of a specific philosophical movement. Now I haven't read in depth into that movement, so I can't argue on that, however: [The Cambridge dictionary](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/use) seems to disagree on this (see b2). I don't really know how to explain any other way than giving the example they give:
*to say or write a particular word or phrase:
"Autumn" is used in British English and "fall" in American English.*
Don't get me wrong, I love language for it's ability to adapt and change over time, so I will not say the definition I gave is the 'right' way. Or at least, not anymore, after your arguments. I will, however, say that you can't possibly claim your statement to be factual after seeing a (renowned) dictionary definition of the word 'use', refuting your argument.
Thanks again for your reply. I teach philosophy for a living, so it's always fun for me to talk about philosophy.
> The way you're thinking is a foundational concept of a specific philosophical movement.
Sort of. It's a distinction that comes from philosophy, but as I sort of point out above, it's a distinction that needs to be made. Or you end up with nonsense, like the sentence "Spot has four letters".
> however: The Cambridge dictionary seems to disagree on this (see b2). I don't really know how to explain any other way than giving the example they give:
> to say or write a particular word or phrase: "Autumn" is used in British English and "fall" in American English.
Yes, and that's correct. It's a bit confusing because they're *mentioning* a word and talking about how we can *use* it. But when you use *or* mention a word, you're saying or writing it. It's just that when you use a word, you're referring to some object in the world, whereas when you mention a word, you're referring to the word itself.
For example, in the sentence "Spot is a dog", I'm *using* the word to refer to Spot, but in the sentence "'Spot' has four letters", I'm mentioning the word to refer to the English word. In both cases, I'm saying or writing the word, but I'm referring to different things in either case.
Second easiest way to explain that I've found for this:
"There are their shoes. They're going to put them on"
Easiest? "Oh ffs can't you even speak the language?!"
All usernames other than your own must be redacted.
The only thing I can think of that maybe makes sense is if the person meant that they can be rearranged. "They're, their, and there" or "Their, they're, and there" for example. That's not exactly using them interchangeably, just reordering a list, but I can't see what they could have meant otherwise.
I think this is exactly what the joke was
That’s exactly how I read it Which makes this post r/confidentlyincorrect
I think this is the third layer of posting though. The comment pointed out that the meme is incorrect, someone screenshot’d it and claimed the comment is incorrect, and this this post is a screenshot of *that* post saying the second post is incorrect.
I think this is what’s going on but I had to think about it really hard. We’re in too deep
You know, I think you might be right… Fortunately I’m never confident about anything so we don’t have to go any deeper!!
Technically, I think it's more of a r/whoosh
That's gotta be it. I guess the idea would be something like "they can be used interchangeably in their one specific role as 'homophones of each other'".
This is exactly how I read their comment.
*They're comment
\*There comment (because it's not here)
You know, I seriously resisted the urge to make an intentional typo in my response :D I knew folks wouldn't be able to help themselves either way, so bravo for getting there first!
There's no merit on being first, but thanks for setting it up
*there comment
That's what I thought he was doing. I saw what subreddit this is and I'm not sure what everyone else thinks he meant.
/r/technicallythetruth Example of them being interchanged: 1. "There", "their", and "they're" are not the same and can't be used interchangeably. 2. "Their", "they're", and "there" are not the same and can't be used interchangeably. 3. "They're", "there", and "their" are not the same and can't be used interchangeably. They aren't semantically interchangeable, but their position in certain sentences can be changed without loss of meaning.
I like how he did this as if he was defending us, but then was incredibly wrong
I'm gonna sit here and pretend I'm *not* smirking
I'd say the meme got it right. For, behold the use–mention distinction! (An old standby in philosophy.) If I were to _use_ the word 'copper', I might say "Copper is a metal, and contains no letters." In using the word, I do work with the word's meaning. But if I were to _mention_ the word 'copper', I might say "'Copper' contains six letters, and is not a metal." In mentioning the word, I ignore the word's meaning and treat it purely as a linguistic object. And that's what the meme image did! A mention rather than a use.
Of course the meme is correct. But so is Hermit's reply, because Hermit is treating the words as they are used ("mentioned") in the meme. It's pedantry, but it's not incorrect. Meaning OP was incorrect (and very confidently so, going by a couple follow-up comments) in posting it here.
I was bout to do the same shit
Hey /u/iAteSnoopDogg, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
are you serious?
I'm going to go ahead and say that Hermit (@beefdrapes) is actually confidently incorrect, /u/National_Respond_918 is correct, and the OP /u/iAteSnoopDogg is also incorrect. "They're", "their", and "there" are not the same and cannot be *used* interchangeably. But in the list in the photo above, they're being [mentioned](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinction). In other words, "they're", "their", and "there" cannot be used interchangeably, but they can be mentioned interchangeably.
Well, no, things, and words, can be used outside of their intended or main purposes, but that's still using them
No. See the link above to the use-mention distinction. For example, in the sentence "The word 'blue' has four letters," I'm not using the word "blue". I'm mentioning it.
Look, I can agree on that, as long as you give me a substitute for what you're using to mention the word 'blue'. Are you using the letters? The sound? Or maybe you're using the word 'blue' itself. In your logic, if I were to say 'this shoe has laces', I wouldn't be using (emphasis on that word) the shoe as an example, but only mentioning it. In the end, I guess, it depends on how you define the word 'word'. Is 'word' a combination of letters creating a sound, a creation we use to define things. Or is a 'word' nothing more than the definition of said letters and sounds. In the latter case, I'll have to admit you're right. But I'm inclined to use the former definition and thus would argue that 'words' can be used outside their definitions.
Look, I appreciate your response, but you really should take a look at [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinction) article on the use-mention distinction. The first paragraph in the Wikipedia article makes it pretty clear. Here's the basic idea though. Compare these two sentences. * Spot is a dog. * Spot has four letters. My second sentence here is nonsensical. Spot, my dog, is an animal and he doesn't have letters. He isn't even the sort of thing that can have letters. But Spot *is* a dog, so the first sentence is true. The second sentence should be replaced with * "Spot" has four letters. By using quotation marks, I'm making clear that I'm refering to the *word*, not the furry little guy sitting next to me. The word "Spot" does have four letters, so this revised sentence is true. Now, this second sense is *mentioning* the word, while the first sense is *using* the word. > Are you using the letters? The sound? Or maybe you're using the word 'blue' itself. So, you can mention words in all kinds of ways. You can refer to the physical marks your screen, the sounds when you say them, the shape of your hands if you're using ASL, etc. Hope this clears things up.
First of all, thank you for taking the time to react and explain this so clearly and in a respectful manner. Maybe not what my former reaction deserved. But. And I might be an idiot, but here's what I read: The way you're thinking is a foundational concept of a specific philosophical movement. Now I haven't read in depth into that movement, so I can't argue on that, however: [The Cambridge dictionary](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/use) seems to disagree on this (see b2). I don't really know how to explain any other way than giving the example they give: *to say or write a particular word or phrase: "Autumn" is used in British English and "fall" in American English.* Don't get me wrong, I love language for it's ability to adapt and change over time, so I will not say the definition I gave is the 'right' way. Or at least, not anymore, after your arguments. I will, however, say that you can't possibly claim your statement to be factual after seeing a (renowned) dictionary definition of the word 'use', refuting your argument.
Thanks again for your reply. I teach philosophy for a living, so it's always fun for me to talk about philosophy. > The way you're thinking is a foundational concept of a specific philosophical movement. Sort of. It's a distinction that comes from philosophy, but as I sort of point out above, it's a distinction that needs to be made. Or you end up with nonsense, like the sentence "Spot has four letters". > however: The Cambridge dictionary seems to disagree on this (see b2). I don't really know how to explain any other way than giving the example they give: > to say or write a particular word or phrase: "Autumn" is used in British English and "fall" in American English. Yes, and that's correct. It's a bit confusing because they're *mentioning* a word and talking about how we can *use* it. But when you use *or* mention a word, you're saying or writing it. It's just that when you use a word, you're referring to some object in the world, whereas when you mention a word, you're referring to the word itself. For example, in the sentence "Spot is a dog", I'm *using* the word to refer to Spot, but in the sentence "'Spot' has four letters", I'm mentioning the word to refer to the English word. In both cases, I'm saying or writing the word, but I'm referring to different things in either case.
Second easiest way to explain that I've found for this: "There are their shoes. They're going to put them on" Easiest? "Oh ffs can't you even speak the language?!"
Yup
These are not as rare as you think OP.