I have refuted the Münchhausen trilemma: The dogmatic argument, which
rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than
defended. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

Stipulating relations between finite strings is the only way that
arbitrary finite strings acquire any semantic meaning thus is not merely
dogmatic. Language only acquires meaning on the basis of stipulating
relations between otherwise arbitrary finite strings.

Although "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" if we fail to
assign any name to {a rose} then we cannot even refer to it.

The relationship between "dog" and "animal" is stipulated to be [is a
type of]. The only way to prove that a dog is an animal is through other
stipulated relationships.

The foundation of analytical knowledge is based on stipulated relations
between otherwise arbitrary finite strings.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323866366_The_Notion_of_Truth_in_Natural_and_Formal_Languages

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 7:12:46 AM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
> I have refuted the Münchhausen trilemma: The dogmatic argument, which
> rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than
> defended. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
>
> Stipulating relations between finite strings is the only way that
> arbitrary finite strings acquire any semantic meaning thus is not merely
> dogmatic. Language only acquires meaning on the basis of stipulating
> relations between otherwise arbitrary finite strings.
>
> Although "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" if we fail to
> assign any name to {a rose} then we cannot even refer to it.
>
> The relationship between "dog" and "animal" is stipulated to be [is a
> type of]. The only way to prove that a dog is an animal is through other
> stipulated relationships.
>
> The foundation of analytical knowledge is based on stipulated relations
> between otherwise arbitrary finite strings.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323866366_The_Notion_of_Truth_in_Natural_and_Formal_Languages
It is unclear to me why you think this little philosophical toy has any relevance to natural language. Natural language is not involved with proofs.
Even the proposition that natural language can be adequately represented by finite strings is not universally accepted.

What you call "stipulation" is a form of making assumptions. It needs to be carefully distinguished from making definitions.