Re: Re: Clarity of Orders

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Worthy" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 10:13 PM
Subject: [CAT23-GM] Re: Clarity of Orders


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

I don't think anybody who has claimed these orders to be ambiguous have brought forward a second possible 
meaning for them. This tends to suggest that these orders can only admit one meaning, and therefore should be 
followed.

Regards
Peter



>
> 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