Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 6988545" data-attributes="member: 6802765">Your familiarity with the idiomatic usage of &quot;vanish&quot; appears to differ from mine. Furthermore, there's no indication that Crawford was using &quot;vanish&quot; idiomatically in the first place. Unless you can clearly identify the idiom in question, I'm going to continue to favor the interpretation that relies on the standard usage. In general, where a standard definition fits gramatically and conceptually, I'm not inclined to hunt for an alternative idiomatic interpretation.But the halfling stepped behind A at the point when the halfing started being careful (i.e. took the hide action). If the halfling wasnt already behind A when A is noticed, the halfling would automatically be seen. So I'm still not seeing a sense of &quot;vanish&quot; that applies to the Halfling at the point in time when A is seen. (And, as previously discussed, applying the term &quot;vanish&quot; to the point in time when the Halfling started being careful doesn't meet either of the other two conditions necessary to fit Crawford's statement: it's not halfling-specific, and the Halfling wasn't &quot;in full view&quot; at the time.)First, I don't agree that that's a good use of &quot;vanish&quot;, idiomatic or otherwise. Second, even if it was, I don't agree that the birdwatcher is &quot;in full view&quot;... something (even if its just distance) is preventing the nearest people and animals from seeing the birdwatcher, just as the walls of the empty room prevent the human in my example from being &quot;in full view&quot; of anyone outside the room. Third, to the extent that &quot;vanish&quot; applies at all here, it applies at the time the birdwatcher &quot;slips into the foliage&quot;, not at the later time that a person or animal wanders by.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Xetheral, post: 6988545, member: 6802765"] Your familiarity with the idiomatic usage of "vanish" appears to differ from mine. Furthermore, there's no indication that Crawford was using "vanish" idiomatically in the first place. Unless you can clearly identify the idiom in question, I'm going to continue to favor the interpretation that relies on the standard usage. In general, where a standard definition fits gramatically and conceptually, I'm not inclined to hunt for an alternative idiomatic interpretation. But the halfling stepped behind A at the point when the halfing started being careful (i.e. took the hide action). If the halfling wasnt already behind A when A is noticed, the halfling would automatically be seen. So I'm still not seeing a sense of "vanish" that applies to the Halfling at the point in time when A is seen. (And, as previously discussed, applying the term "vanish" to the point in time when the Halfling started being careful doesn't meet either of the other two conditions necessary to fit Crawford's statement: it's not halfling-specific, and the Halfling wasn't "in full view" at the time.) First, I don't agree that that's a good use of "vanish", idiomatic or otherwise. Second, even if it was, I don't agree that the birdwatcher is "in full view"... [I]something[/I] (even if its just distance) is preventing the nearest people and animals from seeing the birdwatcher, just as the walls of the empty room prevent the human in my example from being "in full view" of anyone outside the room. Third, to the extent that "vanish" applies at all here, it applies at the time the birdwatcher "slips into the foliage", not at the later time that a person or animal wanders by. [/QUOTE]

Verification