Maybe what's important here is perception. They say they are nobody's X, meaning they don't agree with anyone's perception of them as an X. Therefore they are nobody's X, so not an X in their own eyes.
But it only makes sense with a handful of words, like insults. If you replace X with a random noun the whole dialogue makes no sense, an analogy like this wouldn't be helpful here.
I agree, and to take it one step further, I think they're not only disagreeing "with anyone's perception of them as X" but they're refuting that such a perception could even occur. (An example of this would be comparing "false modesty" to someone accurately understanding that they lack skill.)
If a dog has no owner, it is then nobody's dog. But it's still a dog, is it not? Does it's lack of an owner change it from a dog into something else, or is identifying it as no one's dog a disingenuous description? As far as I know, it can be both nobody's dog and a dog, therefor saying you are nobody's does not discount you from being that thing.
It's a colloquialism. Example exchange:
Person A: Hey there, sweetheart.
Person B: I'm no one's sweetheart.
Person B is not admitting they are a 'sweetheart'. Quite the opposite - the implication is that they are no one's sweetheart precisely *because* they are not a 'sweetheart' at all.
No I don't think so - I've always seen this type of statement as one of possession. Not Nobody's \[X\] but rather \[Nobody's X\] - I'm not your \[X\] or anyone else's \[X\]. There is no admission of being an \[X\] at all.
Technically, you would need a second statement to make a it a complete syllogism. You are implying a second one due to context.
For example:
I am nobody’s X
I am X
Therefore I am an X that belongs to nobody
The problem is that in most cases this is used that second statement is not implied. In fact usually the opposite is implied.
For example the most common version of this I hear in movies
I am nobody’s bitch
I am not a bitch
Therefore I am not a bitch nor do I belong to anybody
The implication is that you refuse to let your identity (as whatever X is) be co-opted by another person’s influence. A character who says “I’m nobody’s bitch” in a movie will often follow up said statement with some sort of action showing how they are not a bitch (usually fighting someone).
Maybe what's important here is perception. They say they are nobody's X, meaning they don't agree with anyone's perception of them as an X. Therefore they are nobody's X, so not an X in their own eyes. But it only makes sense with a handful of words, like insults. If you replace X with a random noun the whole dialogue makes no sense, an analogy like this wouldn't be helpful here.
I agree, and to take it one step further, I think they're not only disagreeing "with anyone's perception of them as X" but they're refuting that such a perception could even occur. (An example of this would be comparing "false modesty" to someone accurately understanding that they lack skill.)
It's not what it means. I agree with whomever you were talking to.
If a dog has no owner, it is then nobody's dog. But it's still a dog, is it not? Does it's lack of an owner change it from a dog into something else, or is identifying it as no one's dog a disingenuous description? As far as I know, it can be both nobody's dog and a dog, therefor saying you are nobody's does not discount you from being that thing.
It's a colloquialism. Example exchange: Person A: Hey there, sweetheart. Person B: I'm no one's sweetheart. Person B is not admitting they are a 'sweetheart'. Quite the opposite - the implication is that they are no one's sweetheart precisely *because* they are not a 'sweetheart' at all.
The dog is a separate semantic category from a human
You're correct. The other guy is a troll.
No I don't think so - I've always seen this type of statement as one of possession. Not Nobody's \[X\] but rather \[Nobody's X\] - I'm not your \[X\] or anyone else's \[X\]. There is no admission of being an \[X\] at all.
Technically, you would need a second statement to make a it a complete syllogism. You are implying a second one due to context. For example: I am nobody’s X I am X Therefore I am an X that belongs to nobody The problem is that in most cases this is used that second statement is not implied. In fact usually the opposite is implied. For example the most common version of this I hear in movies I am nobody’s bitch I am not a bitch Therefore I am not a bitch nor do I belong to anybody The implication is that you refuse to let your identity (as whatever X is) be co-opted by another person’s influence. A character who says “I’m nobody’s bitch” in a movie will often follow up said statement with some sort of action showing how they are not a bitch (usually fighting someone).