Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8388804" data-attributes="member: 71699">I admire your gambit here <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />As I said, we have been here before. The reason I feel the words as written cannot support the mixture view as desired is fairly simple. Here I am focusing on your claim, which is &quot;what the words written in the book actually say&quot;.<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Foremost, the words are strictly ambiguous: they do admit of more than one possible meaning.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Taken to mean a mixture, we agree that 600 rounds of combat is included. As would be for instance 59 minutes and 54 seconds of walking and 1 round of combat.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">It is absurd to suppose that the intent actually is 600 rounds of combat, because (among other reasons) an adventurer could level from 1-10 or more while resting, were that so.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Therefore there must be something about our reading that excludes 600 rounds of combat while including every mixture that we find acceptable.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">But there is nothing in the words - nothing in what the words actually say - that rules out 600 rounds of combat.</li>
</ol>Therefore it is totally fine - in fact I believe reasonable - to suppose that whatever mixtures we feel okay about are what was intended. We could say it is just a problem of a designer making a mistake with the wording. What we cannot say is that what the words actually say is that some mixtures are in and some - like 600 rounds of combat - are out. We have to add words in our act of interpretation to get there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8388804, member: 71699"] I admire your gambit here :p As I said, we have been here before. The reason I feel the words as written cannot support the mixture view as desired is fairly simple. Here I am focusing on your claim, which is "what the words written in the book actually [I]say[/I]". [LIST=1] [*]Foremost, the words are strictly ambiguous: they do admit of more than one possible meaning. [*]Taken to mean a mixture, we agree that 600 rounds of combat is included. As would be for instance 59 minutes and 54 seconds of walking and 1 round of combat. [*]It is absurd to suppose that the intent actually is 600 rounds of combat, because (among other reasons) an adventurer could level from 1-10 or more while [I]resting[/I], were that so. [*]Therefore there must be something about our reading that excludes 600 rounds of combat while including every mixture that we find acceptable. [*]But there is nothing in the [I]words[/I] - nothing in what the words [I]actually say[/I] - that rules out 600 rounds of combat. [/LIST] Therefore it is totally fine - in fact I believe reasonable - to suppose that whatever mixtures we feel okay about are what was intended. We could say it is just a problem of a designer making a mistake with the wording. What we cannot say is that what the words [I]actually say[/I] is that some mixtures are in and some - like 600 rounds of combat - are out. We have to add words in our act of interpretation to get there. [/QUOTE]

Verification