On 11/9/19 7:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Rather, I think that this clause does definition-by-properties of "by
announcement", where it ascribes properties to a phrase, but doesn't
give
an actual textual definition to the phrase. I think this is conceptually
similar to how the Rules don't say what ratification actually is, just
that it has some consequences on the gamestate. And, if there's no hard
definition, then the text-replacement argument kind of falls apart.
Here, I disagree. I think it reads nicely and sensibly as a straight-up
substitution, i.e. it can be read as when a rule uses "by
announcement" in
association with the definition of an action, it means the defined
action is
performed "by unambiguously and clearly" etc. The parts in the quotes
still
function as a direct definition/substitution - that's the purpose of the
quotes, to strictly delimit what's being defined.
-G.
Relevant clause, repeated for ease of reading:
Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and
clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it.
I find it unlikely either of us is going to convince the other, but here
goes (also, I may be going a bit language nerd <https://xkcd.com/1443/>
here):
Considering the wording as applying a specific property whenever the
rules use "by announcement" with regards to an action does solve the
active/passive grammatical disparity in R478's sentence (since it would
be a dependent clause and an independent clause, each in the active
voice). As for the "by announcement" being in quotes, that can be read
as simply requiring the exact phrasing.
As another example, an instance in the current rules that I am
absolutely sure uses definition-by-properties (since I wrote this) is
this clause from R2162:
A Rule that designates
a switch as "secured" (at a given power level) designates changes
to the properties of that type of switch as secured (at that power
level) and designates changes to the value of each instance of the
switch as secured (at that power level).
This clearly does not give an actual definition for "secured" when
applied to switches, it merely states the consequences of the Rules
designating a type of switch as "secured". It looks relatively similar
to R473's sentence - a quoted term, and a statement of what the
consequences are when that term is used. A simple text replacement would
simply not be meaningful here. Although R478's sentence uses a dependent
clause, I read the two has having the same effect.
Compare this to
The phrase "in a timely fashion" means "within 7 days".
or
To "change" one's vote is to
retract eir previous ballot (if any), then submit a new one.
These examples are clearly actual definitions - they have a linking
verb, a term, and a meaning. They don't examine what the text of the
Rules says at all - they just say what a term means. A text substitution
would be meaningful here.
Anyways, this has been my rant. It probably accomplished nothing, but I
tried.
--
Jason Cobb
