Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6983915" data-attributes="member: 42582">But the Gricean maxims equally point the other way: if someone means to convey &quot;X can hide even when under direct observation and hence being clearly seen&quot;, why use such oblique expressions as &quot;X can hid when observers are nearby, and when eyes are staring directly at him/her&quot;?I think the answer is obvious - the hiding rules are meant to sustain a range of approaches at the table, are deliberately written so as to straddle those various uses, and the Sage Advice reiterates the same ambiguities.I'm sure some people run hiding very similar to 4e: being unseeen is a necessary condition for entering the hidden state, but then it can be sustained as long as there is some obscurement. For these people, the only way MotW et al are useful is if they permit becoming hidden even when not unseen, but only lightly obscured.On the other hand,&nbsp; [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] does not run hiding like 4e: being lightly obscured is not, by default, sufficient to remain hidden at Hriston's table. On this approach, MotW et al confer a benefit by changing that state of affairs.On the semantic side of things, for the 4e approach it is important to distinguish between &quot;hiding&quot;, &quot;attempting to hide&quot;, etc = become hidden and &quot;hiding&quot;, &quot;attempting to hide&quot;, etc = remain hidden. On Hriston's approach, on the other hand, these are all equivalent: in metaphysical terms, you could say that on Hriston's approach the (enduring) state of being hidden is nothing but a sequence of events of becoming hidden.The language of the rules, by not clearly distinguishing between state and event, again leaves both readings open. I don't think this is an accident. Crawford is clever, and can write more precisely than that if he wants to.See this post, and also my post preceding it upthread.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6983915, member: 42582"] But the Gricean maxims equally point the other way: if someone means to convey "X can hide even when under direct observation and hence being clearly seen", why use such oblique expressions as "X can hid when observers are nearby, and when eyes are staring directly at him/her"? I think the answer is obvious - the hiding rules are meant to sustain a range of approaches at the table, are deliberately written so as to straddle those various uses, and the Sage Advice reiterates the same ambiguities. I'm sure some people run hiding very similar to 4e: being unseeen is a necessary condition for entering the hidden state, but then it can be sustained as long as there is some obscurement. For these people, the only way MotW et al are useful is if they permit becoming hidden even when not unseen, but only lightly obscured. On the other hand, [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] does not run hiding like 4e: being lightly obscured is not, by default, sufficient to remain hidden at Hriston's table. On this approach, MotW et al confer a benefit by changing that state of affairs. On the semantic side of things, for the 4e approach it is important to distinguish between "hiding", "attempting to hide", etc = become hidden and "hiding", "attempting to hide", etc = remain hidden. On Hriston's approach, on the other hand, these are all equivalent: in metaphysical terms, you could say that on Hriston's approach the (enduring) state of being hidden is nothing but a sequence of events of becoming hidden. The language of the rules, by not clearly distinguishing between state and event, again leaves both readings open. I don't think this is an accident. Crawford is clever, and can write more precisely than that if he wants to. See this post, and also my post preceding it upthread. [/QUOTE]

Verification