>Q is multiple people.
This assertion could have (at least) three different meanings.
1) Multiple people authored the "official" Q posts.
(Note that "Q" embraced the "official numbering" implicitly via Q1776, even if there might have been some objective ambiguity at first.)
This interpretion does not follow from the fact that the official posts use different personae or different writing styles, since any good writer can play different characters.
2) There are multiple people on "Q team" who drop "Q comms" on this board.
This is likely TRUE, since… a) no single person monitors this board 24/7, but b) it seems that insiders "in the know" DO monitor the board 24/7 and can respond in real time.
3) Multiple insiders drop Q-related comms.
This is seemingly TRUE.
Dan Scavino is the best example.
He has more than once dropped flagrant "Q comms", but he also seems to do his own thing, and isn't simply concerned with staying in line with any particular "Q theme".
Not every MAGA normie is down with the Q shit and Dan posts for them too, or even foremost.
>semantics
Exactly this.
Semantics is the most important part of linguistics, as it concerns meaning.
All the rest… phonetics, orthography, syntax, etc…. contributes to semantics (or it is window dressing).
>but Q was a entity posting under one tripcode.
Actually, Q made it clear that he/she did NOT always post using a tripcode.
Remember Test 3?
>Q was multiple people
Ain't that the question?
There are obviously (if you pay attention) multiple people involved in some way with the Q operation.
But the fact that "official" Q posts differ considerably does NOT mean that they were written by different insiders.