Re: Re: Clarity of Orders

At 11:43 PM +0100 7/24/05, Peter J Richardson wrote:
>  > 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.

I think case 5 is fairly clearly ambiguous.  Given the context, that 
order can mean that the unit should move, or it could mean that the 
unit supports another.  In context, I don't understand what is meant, 
so I would rule it ambiguous, unless there is sufficient external 
evidence which provides additional clarity.  The context is crucial 
here, both in creating the ambiguity and in failing to resolve it.

On further examination, though, I think the inclusion of the foreign 
unit in case 6 is enough to rescue the order.  It is clearer to begin 
with, although the use of the future tense still bothers me.  But the 
fact that the other unit is explicitly specified makes it clear 
enough for me.  You don't ever specify a foreign unit for a hold 
order.

So David and I agree.

Incidentally (for Mike's benefit), I don't at all regard the approach 
I am taking to be that of a "strict constructionist".  Quite the 
opposite, in fact.  You seem to be confident that the player will 
welcome your resolution of case 5 as a support order, and I'm not 
convinced that you are correct.  To me that doubt is the very 
definition of ambiguity.

YMMV,

-- 

-Adam