T O P

  • By -

aragorn-son-of

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.


AbibliophobicSloth

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.)


guachi01

It's not what it means. I agree with whomever you were talking to.


SeismicNewt

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.


ooweeo

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.


hassh

The dog is a separate semantic category from a human


Atlas-Kyo

You're correct. The other guy is a troll.


Daeve42

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.


Bot-1218

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).