Re: Clarity of Orders

Both are ambiguous despite linguistic issues, simply because people 
have been arguing both cases.

This is why I e-mail players to clarify these things.  Perhaps you'd 
have time to do that?

Stephen

--- In [email protected], "David E. Cohen" <zendip18@o...> 
wrote:
> I was leaning that way before, and on reflection I have 
concluded "to 
> supports" is just ambiguous, both grammatically and dip-wise.  I  
would say 
> that "to support", on the other hand, is not, and can be part of a 
valid 
> support order.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Michael D. Ashland" <warlord@m...>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 10:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [CAT23-GM] Clarity of Orders
> 
> 
> > Adam,
> >
> > Is English your first language? It may not be for the player in
> > question, and the "s" on "supports" could be a typo. I'm not an 
English
> > major by any stretch of the imagination, and only Libby knows 
for sure,
> > but I would not rule these orders as ambiguous unless the player 
had
> > been warned about this type of thing earlier in the game.
> >
> > I know there are "strict constructionists" out there, and that's 
one of
> > the reasons we like human GM's around here.
> >
> > And for the record, I'm not trying to determine the player's 
intent. I
> > do not care what his or her intent was. I'm taking a poorly 
written
> > order, and deciding that it only has one possible meaning, using 
just my
> > own particular brand of logic, in a case taken out of context, 
and with
> > some circumstances assumed.
> >
> > Regards to all,
> >
> > Mike A.
> >
> > Adam Kuehn wrote:
> >
> >>Michael D. Ashland wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>You are going to get opinions both ways, but "to" is a 
preposition, not
> >>>a verb, and as such, the presence of the word "support(s)" (a 
transitive
> >>>verb in this case) in the orders would settle the question in 
my mind.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Case 6 is an infinitive, read literally, so I can see how your
> >>argument might hold there.  But I do not understand your 
willingness
> >>to parse the phrase "to supports" down into its components and 
then
> >>rule that "supports" is somehow more important because of which 
part
> >>of speech it represents.  By itself, "to" has a clear meaning.
> >>("[U]sed as a function word to indicate movement", if you want 
the
> >>exact, pedantic phrase from Merriam-Webster online.)  By itself,
> >>"supports" has an equally clear, but opposite, meaning.  Their
> >>concatenation, "to supports", is grammatically nonsensical.
> >>
> >>I just don't see how the part of speech of the component words 
helps
> >>you divine the intent of the person writing the order.  I'm not
> >>trying to be overly picky, I'm just genuinely interested in 
hearing
> >>why you think the part of speech helps, given that each word is
> >>independently successful in conveying unambiguous meaning.
> >>
> >>In my view, as likely as not we are looking at a cut-and-paste 
error.
> >>The player intended one thing at first, and then tried to cut in 
the
> >>opposite thing but failed to delete the superceded material.  But
> >>which material is to be superceded?  There's just no way to know.
> >>
> >>-Adam
> >>
> >>
> >>Community email addresses:
> >>  Post message: [email protected]
> >>  Subscribe:    [email protected]
> >>  Unsubscribe:  [email protected]
> >>  List owner:   [email protected]
> >>
> >>Shortcut URL to this page:
> >>  http://www.onelist.com/community/CAT23-GM
> >>Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Community email addresses:
> >  Post message: [email protected]
> >  Subscribe:    [email protected]
> >  Unsubscribe:  [email protected]
> >  List owner:   [email protected]
> >
> > Shortcut URL to this page:
> >  http://www.onelist.com/community/CAT23-GM
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >