"Semantic"s relation to "Pedantic" [closed]

When pointing out to my friends one day that I should have used a different word in a previous conversation, I mentioned that I was being pedantic. They, ironically, corrected me saying I was being semantic. When I pointed out that their distinction was being pedantic, they again disagreed, saying that was semantic. Though I looked up both definitions and that they seem to have a lot of overlap, pedantic seems to be the adjective to use for people though is far more general. Which one is more correct in these situations, or are they both correct? If they are both correct, which one is more "proper?"

On the face of it, the answer to the question in the title cannot be anything other than "mu": these two words are almost completely orthogonal. But given your explanation, I can see where you're coming from.

I would say your friends are wrong, by virtue of the fact that "being" and "semantic" don't go together in my mind. An argument can be semantic; a person can't. (nGram that agrees with me)

That said, Ronan Murphy is correct in that semantic nitpicking is a specific type of pedantry. You can be pedantic about a lot of things, but when you're pedantic about the meanings of words, then you're engaging in semantic pedantry.

Note that pedantry isn't really the same thing as nitpicking. As a button I own says, "I'm not anal, I'm a pedant. There's a difference. Let me explain...". :)

They are two completely separate concepts.

Pedantic means being overly scrupulous in your assessment. In other words, sticking too closely to strict definitions at the cost of the overall meaning.

Semantic means pertaining to meaning in language.

They are not interchangeable, though they are frequently used that way.

The expression that's just semantics really means you are not arguing the premise, just what to call it. (Note that this argument is actually backwards since semantics implies the meaning of the words rather than the choice of words.)

The expression you are being pedantic means that you are nitpicking over unimportant details in the argument. In other words, if you are discussing George Washington's horsemanship: trying to discredit your opponents point of view because his horse was white not brown. That would be pedantic.

It is absolutely possible to have pedantic semantic argument, but it doesn't make them equivalent.

And, before it gets said in comments my post is both pedantic and semantic!