>>50176235You didn't answer the question, unless you literally think "yes" should be used for both which leads back to the same issue. Please answer the question.
>both can be used interchangeablyThen, as I already said, one of the concepts ends up with no word.
> especially when referring to a multiverse contextNot really, as you have a third concept there.
For someone who claims to know how "language works" you sure don't know how to read language.
>>50176246>he noun is the singular thing that contains all the timelines.>The adjective is essentially a synonym for "true."Yes, never said otherwise.
>You are refuting the existence of the adjectiveWhere? If something "truly" happened in the story then its canon. I never said otherwise. Whichever world or timeline it did happen in in-universe is an entirely different discussion though.
Also, that's not a contradiction.
>you reply "Misinfo" to my claim that there is no one canonYes, and an argument is made by yourself in that very same post, as addressed.
> which implies that you do think one timeline is more "canon" (adjective) than the others, as in more "true."Not really, at all.
> somehow means I am saying that there IS one timeline that is more "canon" (adjective) than the others.If all timelines are canon then all timelines are canon. Meaning there's a canon timeline. Many at that.
If there was no canon timeline then no timeline would be canon(which'd be weird as of itself) and thus no timeline can be canon.
Also not a contradiction, you even claim I might be confused.
>the multiverse and canon aren't related and you don't single out a cnon one.Please point out where did I say they're related.
>So you have gone from arguing that there IS one timeline more "canon" (adjective) than the othersnever said that.
>You are adamant that there is only one canon (noun)I'm, not being "adamant", that's literally how it works.
