Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9483263" data-attributes="member: 71699">I did not say that I introduced or formerly used the term, and I am speaking to the phrase &quot;natural language&quot; as it has been used in this domain, not in others. I am, for avoidance of doubt, saying what I, clearstream, mean by it. The natural meaning of a word is its meaning in natural language.Words must be given their meaning from a reader's context. That is the only option, unless you mean to put forward some sort of platonist argument that one can pluck their meanings from an objectively real conceptual space? One may elaborate upon a word to attempt to inform that context through supporting assertions, diagrams and examples, producing a regress (as one then has to show what exactly forces a reader to associate those diagrams etc. with the word.)An example is the text that reads &quot;Successfully grappling a creature gives it the Grappled condition.&quot; What amounts to &quot;gives it&quot;? How does one understand those words? And how would one deflect a sincerely put argument that &quot;gives&quot; implies &quot;offers as a gift&quot; and thus the condition can be refused? Would you then advocate for errata to explain &quot;gives&quot;?I can see that you are committed to a belief that errata is necessary. I require no errata to understand the word &quot;drag&quot; in the context of grappled. (You can see the irony in these sorts of norm-buttressing assertions.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9483263, member: 71699"] I did not say that I introduced or formerly used the term, and I am speaking to the phrase "natural language" as it has been used in this domain, not in others. I am, for avoidance of doubt, saying what I, clearstream, mean by it. The natural meaning of a word is its meaning in natural language. Words must be given their meaning from a reader's context. That is the only option, unless you mean to put forward some sort of platonist argument that one can pluck their meanings from an objectively real conceptual space? One may elaborate upon a word to attempt to inform that context through supporting assertions, diagrams and examples, producing a regress (as one then has to show what exactly forces a reader to associate those diagrams etc. with the word.) An example is the text that reads "Successfully grappling a creature gives it the Grappled condition." What amounts to "gives it"? How does one understand those words? And how would one deflect a sincerely put argument that "gives" implies "offers as a gift" and thus the condition can be refused? Would you then advocate for errata to explain "gives"? I can see that you are committed to a belief that errata is necessary. I require no errata to understand the word "drag" in the context of grappled. (You can see the irony in these sorts of norm-buttressing assertions.) [/QUOTE]

Verification