On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> As for the rules, the rules are the rules, and less flexible than
> contracts.
And this is in those Rules:
(1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of
a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is
inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as
the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.
I would say that root's simple mapping e posted earlier is common-sense
mapping and avoids ambiguity, especially given:
(2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that
meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly
defined by the rules.
Obviously you don't, so another one for the courts. But don't obfuscate
it, it's just a question on how ambiguous in R754(1) terms this particular
grammatical perturbation is.
-G.
