Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 3813341" data-attributes="member: 5122">I agree, it doesn't.&nbsp; That's why that's not what I said.No, the first sentence might add meaning to the clause as written.&nbsp; It need not do so for the clause as written to work fine and make perfect sense -- grammatically, and as part of the spell description -- nor need it do so for the sentence itself to work fine and make perfect sense, so going beyond it is a choice, not necessary to interpreting the rule.&nbsp; Accordingly, going beyond the clause as written is going beyond the literal meaning.By continuing to assert that the first sentence is necessary to the interpretation, you're assuming the conclusion of your argument within the argument itself.&nbsp; And that's circular reasoning.&nbsp; What you need to show -- as you did with the fly spell -- is that the second sentence renders the spell nonsensical without the influence of the first sentence.And, since it doesn't, you're gonna have a pretty hard time doing that.Once again, whether his interpretation is accurate isn't the issue.&nbsp; It might well be.&nbsp; (Why do I have to keep saying this over and over?)&nbsp; It's simply not the RAW.It serves as -- or could serve as -- what writers call a signpost.&nbsp; Basically, it's an observation orienting the reader in the paragraph.&nbsp; Signposts are not &quot;random,&quot; and nor are they necessarily bad writing; they're used frequently.&nbsp; This signpost says, &quot;Hey, you're getting ready to apply some Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution adjustments,&quot; and then, in the second clause of the second sentence, the reader is unsurprisingly instructed to do just that.Here's an example from miracle (and note that this is the first spell I looked at): &quot;You don’t so much cast a miracle as request one. You state what you would like to have happen and request that your deity (or the power you pray to for spells) intercede.&quot;What function does the first sentence actually serve in the description of how miracle works?&nbsp; None at all.&nbsp; It's a signpost, with all of its meaningful information repeated in the very next sentence.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeff Wilder, post: 3813341, member: 5122"] I agree, it doesn't. That's why that's not what I said. No, the first sentence [i]might[/i] add meaning to the clause as written. It need not do so for the clause as written to work fine and make perfect sense -- grammatically, and as part of the spell description -- nor need it do so for the sentence itself to work fine and make perfect sense, so going beyond it is a [i]choice[/i], not necessary to interpreting the rule. Accordingly, going beyond the clause as written is going beyond the literal meaning. By continuing to assert that the first sentence is necessary to the interpretation, you're assuming the conclusion of your argument within the argument itself. And that's circular reasoning. What you need to show -- as you did with the [i]fly[/i] spell -- is that the second sentence renders the spell nonsensical without the influence of the first sentence. And, since it doesn't, you're gonna have a pretty hard time doing that. Once again, whether his interpretation is accurate isn't the issue. It might well be. (Why do I have to keep saying this over and over?) It's simply not the RAW. It serves as -- or could serve as -- what writers call a signpost. Basically, it's an observation orienting the reader in the paragraph. Signposts are not "random," and nor are they necessarily bad writing; they're used frequently. This signpost says, "Hey, you're getting ready to apply some Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution adjustments," and then, in the second clause of the second sentence, the reader is unsurprisingly instructed to do just that. Here's an example from [i]miracle[/i] (and note that this is the first spell I looked at): "You don’t so much cast a miracle as request one. You state what you would like to have happen and request that your deity (or the power you pray to for spells) intercede." What function does the first sentence actually serve in the description of how [i]miracle[/i] works? None at all. It's a signpost, with all of its meaningful information repeated in the very next sentence. [/QUOTE]

Verification