Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
This eliminates "<x> CAN <y> only if <z>" as a synonym for
"<x> CANNOT <y> if not <z>". Similarly for the other cases.
Those semantics are the usual meaning of "only if", aren't they?
How else might "only if" be interpreted?
As "if not <z>, then the rules do not specify whether <x> CAN or
CANNOT <y>". (Do the rules regulate <x> doing <y> in general,
or <x> doing <y> while <z>? Challenge: find a hypothetical case
in which the latter interpretation would arguably be preferable.)
