Reply #89: They get the meaning of the flag less than the haters of them do?

[Igel]

Non-representational symbols have inherent meaning?

I always thought the very idea of 'symbol' was its meaning was strictly conventional within a community, and in the case of a symbol that wasn't settled by convention meant what the user intended and for the interpreter to figure out.

So <y> stands for a high front rounded vowel in the International Phonetic alphabet (written 'u' in French), but for a high rounded back vowel in the Cyrillic alphabet, and in Spanish orthography only stands for a high front unrounded glide, but in English may stand either for a high front vowel or a high front glide; in Hungarian it indicates that a consonant is palatal, not a vowel at all (e.g., 'Magyar'). Notice the different conventions. As a Slavist, of course, I sometimes use my own (Slavistic) convention in addition to those, and unapproved by any of the above: <y> stands for a high unrounded *central* vowel. Which I intend at any given time, of course, is up to me. But it's always strange to see somebody insisting on interpreting the symbol only within their presumed framework.

There's only confusion if I don't abide by other people's expectations and interpretation. But I'm allowed to ignore other people's expectations, and consider what I intend by my use of a symbol to be definitive as to my intention.