On Sun, 3 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 11:01 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Goethe wrote: >> >>> By the way ais523, what do you think of the other question, on whether >>> "MAY with N Support" in general invokes dependent actions thus turning >>> a MAY into a CAN? >> >> Rule 1728 includes this: >> >> A dependent action CAN be performed non-dependently as otherwise >> permitted by the rules. >> >> but it's not explicit whether that type of permission is physical, >> legal, or both. > > CAN is always physical; but "as otherwise permitted by the rules" makes > the whole thing even more muddy.
Ugh. So we have to interpret both "permitted" and "authorized" either of which can be synonyms for CAN, MAY, or both. Both terms are scattered around the ruleset a lot, so it might be that no hard ruling can be made, but that it's contextual, like the noncapitalized can, may, etc. -G.
