Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="seebs" data-source="post: 6986216" data-attributes="member: 61529">I agree that it doesn't matter whether you're trying to treat &quot;though&quot; as a conjunction or an adverb. The point is that it's creating a contrast between what a lightfoot halfling can do (&quot;try to hide behind a creature&quot;) and what is normally the case (&quot;you can't hide when you're in full view&quot;). Which is stating that the halfling's ability is an exception to the rule that you can't try to hide while in full view. In other words, they are definitely in full view, and yet, they can try to hide. Which is why I don't think the ambiguity is real.I mean, I could offer a &quot;gloss&quot;of &quot;Most words have a range of meanings&quot; as &quot;most orange juice is made with a device called a squeezer&quot;. But you'd probably grant that this is not really an ambiguity in what you said, but rather, substituting genuinely different things that change the meaning.But every attempt I've seen to turn Crawford's fairly straight-forward language into support for the theory that maybe possibly he just picked a half dozen words all of which directly contradicted what he really meaned to communicate has struck me as, to put it mildly, changing the meaning too much to be a credible &quot;interpretation&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="seebs, post: 6986216, member: 61529"] I agree that it doesn't matter whether you're trying to treat "though" as a conjunction or an adverb. The point is that it's creating a contrast between what a lightfoot halfling can do ("try to hide behind a creature") and what is normally the case ("you can't hide when you're in full view"). Which is stating that the halfling's ability is an [B]exception[/B] to the rule that you can't try to hide while in full view. In other words, they are definitely in full view, and yet, they can try to hide. Which is why I don't think the ambiguity is real. I mean, I could offer a "gloss"of "Most words have a range of meanings" as "most [B]orange juice[/B] is [B]made with[/B] a device called a [B]squeezer[/B]". But you'd probably grant that this is not really an ambiguity in what you said, but rather, substituting genuinely different things that change the meaning. But every attempt I've seen to turn Crawford's fairly straight-forward language into support for the theory that maybe possibly he just picked a half dozen words all of which directly contradicted what he really meaned to communicate has struck me as, to put it mildly, changing the meaning too much to be a credible "interpretation". [/QUOTE]

Verification