Re: [eia] Turkish Land Phase, February 1807

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    It all boils down to what is meant by the phrase "the port's area".
Does "the port's area" include the port itself?  Joel's interpretation
relies on the assumption that the EiA authors used the phrase "the port's
area" in order to distinguish between the area outside the city and the port
city itself.  That is, he thinks that "the port's area" refers only to the
area outside the city.  (And I can understand why someone might read it that
way.)  But it is clear from the EiH text that it is possible to refer to
"the port's area" without intending to exclude the port itself.  I believe
that's the best interpretation of the EiA text as well.  (When the EiA
authors refer to "the port's area," they are referring to the entire area,
port city included, not just the portion of the area outside the city.)
    Accordingly, I think the view that JJ and I are adopting is perfectly
consistent with the rule as it is written.  But that's where Joel and I will
probably have to agree to disagree.

kdh

P.S.  I do not claim to speak for JJ.  He has already stated that he thinks
Joel's interpretation is the better interpretation of the rule as it is
written.  JJ and I disagree on *that* point, but not on the substantive
matter at hand - namely, whether the Spanish cavalry corps should be allowed
to land in the city.

> I agree that this makes more sense, though I still think it deviates from
the
> rule as written.
>

_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia