Jestbill@Jestbill@mastodon.world
@csstrowbridge@mastodon.social To claim that there are fish without gills is to ignore the rest of the stated definition.
It also claims that one use of the word somehow negates a different use.
I could just as well claim that lungfish are not really fish.
Words have meanings AND your particular meaning does not rewrite any dictionaries.
C.S.Strowbridge@csstrowbridge@mastodon.social
@Jestbill@mastodon.world
"I could just as well claim that lungfish are not really fish."
Are eels fish?
What about mudskippers?
Guppies?
Coelacanth?
If you can declare lungfish not fish because they don't confirm to one part of your definition, then where do you draw the line?
"Words have meanings AND your particular meaning does not rewrite any dictionaries."
Older dictionaries defined whales as fish. Words have meanings, but those meanings change with new discoveries.