C3PX said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
That dictionary definition is no help to the discussion, because it only gives a very bare interpretation of the word. In the real world "reminiscent" is used a variety of ways.

In general, this kind of thinking simply doesn't work. If this were a true statement, then communication would be nearly impossible. Words are not to be interpreted, words have a very specific meaning. Sometimes multiple meanings and uses, but still, very specific in those meanings and uses.

If I were free to interpret words how I felt fit, or at least as I thought they mean, rather than what they really mean, then my using of that word in conversation with other people would almost invariably cause a breakdown of communication (as exemplified in the discussion at hand). In the real world, the word "reminiscent" has a strictly defined meaning, and that meaning was summed up quite well in the dictionary definition by DF.

Not that I am taking sides on the issue at hand, as I think it is a rather absurd sort of debate. It is just whenever someone decides to take liberties with the English language and the definition of words I cringe a bit.

I was using reminiscent in the sense of "meaningfully reminiscent" or "the whole is reminiscent", as opposed to the sense of "some bit is reminiscent". It's a valid use of the word. There are different ways things can be reminiscent and all versions I have mentioned fit in with the dictionary definition. No matter how much you follow dictionary definition, interpretation is still important. The reality is that very many words are interpreted. That's how language works. It's not a simple clean cut thing. It's messy and complicated.

skyjedi2005 said:
Still it is not really trying to be on par with the oot, it is a seperate thing really An EU offshoot childrens show.

I'm not so sure about that. I think Lucas intends it to be as much canon as the films. And he'd say the films are for kids too.