Firstly, I posted this question on this website because I expect a reasonably sensible answer- for this quesiton is a reasonibly sensible one.
I initially posted this in “general questions” but got a rather hurtful response- so I am going to explain the contet to this question.
Essentially, to my knowledge, a flimflam means something which makes little sense but in itself appears to be a flimflam.I am sure their are other views open to debate on this (frankly my friends are tired of this) but my understanding of “sense” is something dependent on the observer.So in explaining the context of this question to you now a flimflam can surely not be a flimflam because you now understand its meaning.
The essence of flimflam is its deceptive nature. According to Merriam-Webster, it requires multiple words, not a single word. Per the Oxford Dictionary definition you cite, it is “talk,” which also implies multiple words, not a single word.
Furthermore, “flimflam” is not in itself a nonsensical word, since it has a clear and defined meaning.
The real question is hidden behind the logic.The definition of sense, is sense applied to the observer or is it just considered anything under the jurisdiction of documentation?
In the case of the formerly posed question where flimflam is unknown to the observer then it will be created as a new concept within the hierarchy of the brain.Obviously, without any priory knowledge flimflam is just about as associatable to any othe lineof throught as “kehgsfkrljghsrlhiwlghrf” so thus the only applicable logic to someoen who does not understand the word would be that flimflam is equal to itself or not equal to something else.
Thus, flimflas IS flimflas- so the answer in this case would be yes- in the same way that “ekekekekeekekeeeeeeeeeeeeeyooooo” is equal to “ekekekekeekekeeeeeeeeeeeeeyooooo”.
On the other hand, if the meaning of flimflam is indentified then flimflam is nota flimflam because it is a certifiable word.
Of course “talk” may refer to a clump of words but I could quite as easily pose the question of:
“Is flagitious flimflam a flimflam?”
Flagitious also being a favourite word of mine.
Also, I apologise for the 1940s style boolean logic understanding of the brain.
No, it’s a perfectly understandable work describing a concept. Not sure why flimflam would be any different, even if it meant what you think it meant. It doesn’t, so the whole thread is moot. But even if your premise was correct your argument doesn’t follow.
After reading about flim-flam on word detective I think it can be absolutely assured to at least attain a meaning that can be considered as nonsense within a phrase- although it s use within one word may be debatable.
I am stereotypical suburban english 14 year old nerd.I like to use eloquent language out of of context.So with that I bid your a veritable instingency and a incharimsatic potency of doubt wherine I shall stait my withdrawal.
In fact, maybe I could become one of the PRs which explains why the lib dems did not quite do anything they said they did.