Re: Clarity of Orders

Gees, you'd invalidate and order because of an 's'?



David E. Cohen 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" <[email protected]>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>