Re: spoon-discuss: Neatening up - English

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/1/02 at 6:48 PM Dan Waldron wrote:

>>
>> That's good for the future, but there's some status quo holes to be
>> considered.  There is, for example, no in-game definition of "entity",
>> "vote", "object", "rule", "permissible" or many other commonly used
>> words in the rules.  I suspect that if anyone raised a fuss about
>> this, the response would be that the meanings of those words are
>> "known".  What, then, is the criteria for determining which English
>> words are "known" and which aren't?
>>
>> 						Glotmorf
>
>The simplest way would be that a game definition replaces a natural
>english definition in all cases within the scope of the game definition.
>
>So, for example, "points" is defined for players so we use the rules
>definition when referring to players.  But if we talk about a point as a
>position on the grid it reverts to its natural usage.
>
>For anything that lacks an in-game definition then we use the natural
>usage until someone defines it.  I also believe that if there are words
>currently used in the ruleset that require a definition ("object" springs
>to mind, although I dont know how I would go about defining it) that
>someone should get those definitions in a proposal right away.

But how is "natural usage" defined?  Is it what's in the dictionary?  Mr. A shot that down in an argument last nweek, and you're reluctant to propose it.  Is it what everyone agrees it is?  Then it only takes a single dissenting voice to determine a given usage is not the "natural usage".

Case-by-case basis, via CFIs?  Well, okay, but that might bog things down...

						Glotmorf