The word OR

[Unclemeat]

My friend and I disagree about the word OR in the Later Jewish army list and I would like an official view if possible. In the optional troops, the Jewish list has some Thracian Horse (either cav or LH). You can take 0-8 BG 4-6. However the beginning of the entry states "Replace Xystophoroi orHorse Archers with Thracian Horse."

Now I feel the or is inclusive meaning that I can take a 4 BG of Thracian Horse and can drop the Jewish Lancers, and then take another BG of 4 Thracians and drop 4 of the possible 12 Jewish Horse Archers. Alternately if I wanted a 6BG of Thracians I can subtract 6 from the max Jewish H Archers reducing them to a max of 6 elements.

My Friend is stricter. He feels if you drop the 4 Jewish Lancers you can take up to all 8 stands of the Thracian Horse. Alternatively if you want to keep the Lancers, he asserts you could drop all 12 possible Jewish Horse Archers for the 8 stands of Thracians.

Which of us is right? Thanks

[SirGarnet]

Your straightforward reading is right. Replace is always all/none/any or subject to numerical limits on bases.

It would have to have been written differently to mean what he suggests.

[rbodleyscott]

Your reading is correct

[Probert]

Let's call President Clinton. He is still at work on "is", and when he finishes we can see if he will tackle "or" next.

[viperofmilan]

Is there any significance to the different wording found in the Classical Indian list in Immortal Fire? There you can "Replace elephants and/or chariots by bullock or camel carts". If there is no difference in the meaning, is it just a typo in teh Numidian list?

Viper

[rbodleyscott]

Is there any significance to the different wording found in the Classical Indian list in Immortal Fire? There you can "Replace elephants and/or chariots by bullock or camel carts". If there is no difference in the meaning, is it just a typo in teh Numidian list?

I would recommend not looking for arcane significance in minor differences in wording between different lists and different books. Consistency in wording is of course a good thing, but difficult to maintain with absolute accuracy over a long series of publications, written over a protracted period. We are all human. Slightly different wording does not, therefore, necessarily imply a different meaning, nor does it imply a typo.

[viperofmilan]

Richard,

Thanks for your prompt reply.

Please forgive my ignorance. I really am just trying to understand, not give you a hard time. It may be a case of two peoples separated by a common language. On this side of the pond, at least where I went to school, "or" is an exclusive comparative (I am pregnant or I am not), while "and" is an inclusive comparative (I am old and fat). The use of "and/or" is necessary to indicate a combination of the two.

I'm really not trying to find arcane variations in language. I'm just trying to keep things clear in my own mind. You have said that "or" really means and/or/any when speaking of replacing one troop type with another. That is fine if that is what you intended. Does "or" have the same meaning in other parts of the army lists? For instance, when a troop type must all be either HF or MF? I thought I knew what this meant - all must be one thing or the other, like being pregnant or not. But now I'm not so sure. Is the correct understanding that as long as none of the troop type is fielded as LF then any combination of HF or MF would be OK? It would seem to follow from your definition of "or" as being the same as and/or/any.

Thanks for your consideration. As I have said, I am a huge fan of FoG.

Viper

[rbodleyscott]

For instance, when a troop type must all be either HF or MF? I thought I knew what this meant - all must be one thing or the other, like being pregnant or not. But now I'm not so sure. Is the correct understanding that as long as none of the troop type is fielded as LF then any combination of HF or MF would be OK? It would seem to follow from your definition of "or" as being the same as and/or/any.

Where does this construct appear unqualified in the lists? For instance, in the Early Successor list, the instruction is:

" Thureophoroi and thorakitai can be graded as Medium Foot or Heavy Foot, but all of both types must be graded the same."

Which seems pretty unambiguous to me, and does not depend on the definition of "or".

Normally we take "or" as being inclusive. (This is the normal meaning in computer programming, and, as far as I am aware, in logic). I suspect that even across the pond, the meaning of "or" is contextual rather than absolute.

However, I agree that using "and/or" in such cases would have been clearer.

[viperofmilan]

Richard,

Thanks again for your prompt response. All clear now. I don't have any army lists in front of me, but I do not doubt that you are correct about the wording. Sorry to be a pain.

Viper