Re: Re: Clarity of Orders

We non-native English speakers doesn't always knows when we shoulds puts 
an s after the verb. It seem to me it aren't the best of ideas to disallows orders 
on such finer grammatic points. :-)

But then again, having one way of adjudicating for English-speakers and one 
for the rest of us may not make a lot of sense either.

Joe

On 25 Jul 2005 at 9:57, [email protected] wrote:

This "s"?  Maybe so.  I do not know if this is an order to move to the province to to support a unit holding in the province.




----- Original Message -----
From: rsetzer <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, July 25, 2005 9:21 am
Subject: Re: [CAT23-GM] Re: Clarity of Orders

> Not always and not in all cases. Which is the point of asking.
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen Worthy wrote:
> > 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>