More smartass interpretation of terminology: 'a'

This is not a rules question per se, but rather an article presenting an underlying problem with assumptions that RAI and RAW are the same.

Let's look at the unobtrusive 'a'.

In a prior thread (Satyr and dual disciplines) the sign 'a' took on a definite form. I use the term 'sign' deliberately.

In VTES we use words or abbreviations as signs. Not always, but some of them take one 'magical' properties not inherent i all contexts where they occur (ie English language).

In this specific case I'll point out how the innocent 'a' can create a problem.

For the purpose of playing VTES, 'a' has a tendency to be strictly interpreted as 'one'. Arguments that 'a' should be interpreted as 'existing' or 'at least one' have been ruled out on multiple occasions. 'a' means 'one', and nothing but 'one'.

This doesn't present a problem until the rulings clarify that 'one' cannot mean 'member of one or more than one'.

I'll point to a specific card to exemplify why this is problematic.

Cardname: Mukhtar Bey
Cardtype: Vampire
Set: Gehenna
Sect: Camarilla
Group: 4
Clan: Caitiff
Capacity: 7
Discipline: FOR obf pot PRE QUI
Cardtext: Camarilla Prince of Cairo: Mukhtar cannot use presses to continue combat. If there are five Gehenna cards in play during your untap phase, burn Mukhtar.

The card specified above has explicitly been ruled that Mukhtar burns if there are five OR MORE Gehenna cards in play during the controlling meth's untap phase. Said ruling also explicitly states that five is a member of five or more. (Google 'mukhtar bey lsj burn' and you'll find a year 2004 MS word document).

There is no inherent reason to interpret 'one' differently than 'five' for the purposes of determining if the number belongs to a family or is an absolute and unique identity.

I'll leave this problem here for further discussion. My next article will handle impulse swapping and inconsistencies accepted within that frame.

Flame on.

yappo wrote:

For the purpose of playing VTES, 'a' has a tendency to be strictly interpreted as 'one'. Arguments that 'a' should be interpreted as 'existing' or 'at least one' have been ruled out on multiple occasions. 'a' means 'one', and nothing but 'one'.

I doubt this

"While Marcus is ready and a prince Sabbat vampires you control get +1 bleed when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a ready Camarilla vampire."

has it ever been ruled that this special ability does not apply if the target controls 2 or more ready camarilla vampires?

@ yappo : i totally understand your statement. Writing 100% unambiguous text is very difficult indeed and require a tedious work over time . I think it is too late for this game.
We still have the rulings at least.

yappo wrote:

For the purpose of playing VTES, 'a' has a tendency to be strictly interpreted as 'one'. Arguments that 'a' should be interpreted as 'existing' or 'at least one' have been ruled out on multiple occasions. 'a' means 'one', and nothing but 'one'.

I enjoy your rigorous approach to text analysis. I nominate you to the rules team! (Well, I would if there were a rules team and if there were a nomination process.)

I understand that in the case of Shadow Court Satyr and similar cards talked about in that related thread, "a" Discipline has been ruled to mean "one" Discipline. What's more, "one" means "one and only one" in those cases (interesting )

I agree with you that "a" does not mean "one", and I think that LSJ or RTR (or whoever) wanted to avoid the complication of changing the text of the cards to take into account the existence of dual discipline cards, which is what should have been done to make them linguistically correct. The rulings were a lazy workaround to a linguistic inaccuracy. They weren't really clarifications as some people like to think.

Of course, later unrelated rulings apparently say that a number does not mean "that number and only that number". It means "at least that number".
With your implacably logical mind, you've found this interesting inconsistency.

BUT: Does the SCS ruling et al. mean that "a" must always be interpreted as "one and only one"? That is my problem with what you are saying. I think that the rulings are idiosyncratic to the cards in question because those rulings lack linguistic insight.

Can you give three more examples of cards where "a" has been interpreted to mean "one and only one"?

AaronC wrote:

Can you give three more examples of cards where "a" has been interpreted to mean "one and only one"?

Parity Shift.
Govern the unaligned.
Seduction.

Also, non-cardtext usages of "a" referring to "one and only one":

AaronC wrote:

if there were a rules team

AaronC wrote:

if there were a nomination process

I still think you're overreading the "a" in SCS. It is in a non-exhaustive list, which means it could mean anything.