For example, here is the whole paragraph from the
official rules. One understands sentences partly by seeing them in the context of the paragraph.
Note the header does not read, “Definitions of Positional Shooting”.
C. Equipment and Positional Shooting
1. (Stuff we’re not discussing)
2. Standing unsupported position must have both feet on the ground. In the unsupported kneeling position, the shooter must have one knee on the ground. The other knee and one or both feet may be on the ground. In the unsupported seated position, the shooter must have their butt on the ground. Both knees and feet may be on the ground. In the prone unsupported position, it is never acceptable to have any part of the rifle or any part of the hand resting on the ground. The ground includes a mat, tarp, bag, glove, coat etc.
Ok, now broken up per shooting position so it’s easier to read:
C. Equipment and Positional Shooting
1. (Stuff we’re not discussing)
2. Standing unsupported position must have both feet on the ground.
In the unsupported kneeling position, the shooter must have one knee on the ground. The other knee and one or both feet may be on the ground.
In the unsupported seated position, the shooter must have their butt on the ground. Both knees and feet may be on the ground.
In the prone unsupported position, it is never acceptable to have any part of the rifle or any part of the hand resting on the ground.
The ground includes a mat, tarp, bag, glove, coat etc.
ANALYSIS–What’s throwing some people off is a little thing called an “implied subject.” Remember the magic word CONTEXT.
Here we go:
The sentences go sort of like this:
(in x position) (shooter) (must have) (y part) (on/off ground)
It pains me a little to say this, as it is obvious that some English course(s) didn’t stick too well along the way, but the sentence that is causing some controversy IS NOT
constructed wrong. Having
implied subjects (i.e. not written) and the like in sentences is very commonplace. See
here.
Implied subject in action:
(In the) Standing unsupported position (the shooter) must have both feet on the ground.
No implied subject in the below, but they provide context:
In the unsupported kneeling position, the shooter must have one knee on the ground.
In the unsupported seated position, the shooter must have their butt on the ground.
But, given the intended audience’s misunderstandings, perhaps the rule-writers should avoid certain implied subject constructions.
I’m not sure why the writer of the rules felt the need to get a tiny bit fancy. Maybe they were getting bored. I’m not giving him the Nobel Prize in Literature, but it’s serviceable.
Nowhere in the quoted rules do the rules actually
define any position. They just state that, per position, what
must or
must not touch the ground. They do, however, take a stab at what defines the “ground.”
The positions are assumed to be universally agreed upon, just like the basic definitions of commonplace words are universally agreed upon.
There is literally no way the writer meant:
Standing unsupported position (is redefined in its entirety as and ONLY as) must have both feet on the ground (and the rest of the positions aren’t defined but for some stupid reason this one is, and is written with a sort of bizarro-Superman implied predicate and sounds like a retarded five year-old on meth).
Sorry for spouting off but this madness has got to
. This isn’t even a close call.
Please use this logic to kill off that less-than-wrinkled-brain interpretation for the good of all mankind.
Hopefully there is no need to continue.
