Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 6985294" data-attributes="member: 6802765">Every dictionary I've checked either states that vanishing is inherently sudden or quick (Merriam Webster, Macmillian, Oxford) or mentions that the word especially applies when the disappearance is sudden or quick (Cambridge, Free Dictionary). (Vanishing in the context of endangered species is a separate sense of the word (Merriam Webster 1b or Oxford 1.1), and so doesn't apply.)Frankly, I'm surprised by your agreement that vanishing involves a change of state, as the concession appears to be fatal to your argument. I had thought that your entire contention was that Crawford was saying that a Halfling could remain hidden in conditions where others could not. If you agree that Crawford is referring to a Halfling becoming hidden (i.e. changing state) then there doesn't appear to be any ambiguity at all.Are you instead trying to argue that Crawford is referring to Halflings becoming hidden when they're not &quot;in full view&quot;? I understand that you feel that the conjunction &quot;though&quot; is implying qualification rather than opposition, but if the sentence about Halflings isn't understood to be in the same context as the previous sentence where &quot;in full view&quot; is used explicitly, then it becomes a complete non sequitur.Furthermore, in addition to making no sense in context, there would be no reason at all for Crawford state anywhere that Halflings can become hidden behind another creature when they're unobserved, because anyone can become hidden when not in full view even if they don't have anyone to hide behind. They simply can't remain hidden once full view is established. That's why I thought your point was that Crawford, by saying that Halflings can &quot;vanish&quot;, somehow meant by that word that they could remain hidden. Since you agree that vanishing requires a change of state, however, I'm now completely lost as to what interpretation of Crawford's text you're arguing for and how it supports your interpretation of hiding.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Xetheral, post: 6985294, member: 6802765"] Every dictionary I've checked either states that vanishing is inherently sudden or quick (Merriam Webster, Macmillian, Oxford) or mentions that the word especially applies when the disappearance is sudden or quick (Cambridge, Free Dictionary). (Vanishing in the context of endangered species is a separate sense of the word (Merriam Webster 1b or Oxford 1.1), and so doesn't apply.) Frankly, I'm surprised by your agreement that vanishing involves a change of state, as the concession appears to be fatal to your argument. I had thought that your entire contention was that Crawford was saying that a Halfling could [I]remain hidden[/I] in conditions where others could not. If you agree that Crawford is referring to a Halfling [I]becoming hidden[/I] (i.e. changing state) then there doesn't appear to be any ambiguity at all. Are you instead trying to argue that Crawford is referring to Halflings [I]becoming hidden [/I]when they're [B]not[/B] "in full view"? I understand that you feel that the conjunction "though" is implying qualification rather than opposition, but if the sentence about Halflings isn't understood to be in the same context as the previous sentence where "in full view" is used explicitly, then it becomes a complete non sequitur. Furthermore, in addition to making no sense in context, there would be no reason at all for Crawford state anywhere that Halflings can [I]become hidden[/I] behind another creature when they're unobserved, because [B]anyone [/B]can [I]become hidden[/I] when not in full view even if they don't have anyone to hide behind. They simply can't [I]remain hidden[/I] once full view is established. That's why I thought your point was that Crawford, by saying that Halflings can "vanish", somehow meant by that word that they could [I]remain hidden[/I]. Since you agree that vanishing requires a change of state, however, I'm now completely lost as to what interpretation of Crawford's text you're arguing for and how it supports your interpretation of hiding. [/QUOTE]

Verification