The claim
A107 §1: “preserving a proposition is not sufficient to preserve a communicative act.” Manuscript §1: “The three utterances share a loose situation model while differing in footing and illocutionary force. Preserving the proposition is therefore neither necessary nor sufficient for preserving the communicative event.” Three renderings with a shared situation model and different acts show that sharing the proposition is not sufficient. They do not show that a rendering can keep the act while changing the proposition.
Where the missing half is
In the exchange, not the manuscript. A12: “you can alter many of the propositions while preserving the speaker’s attitude, social position, and communicative intention—and the result may feel more faithful” (CLAIM-061). A24’s compensation hypothesis (CLAIM-091) gives the mechanism. The manuscript’s Abstract (“change almost every word while preserving the interpersonal relation”) is about words, not propositions. Granted, as an undermining of CLAIM-061 in its manuscript form: the claim may be true, but the manuscript does not support “necessary”.
Note of 2026-10-10: a documented case
The necessity half now has a documented case, CASE-056, found by a search the owner asked for. J. B. Phillips renders Paul’s “greet one another with a holy kiss” (Rom 16:16 and four parallels) as “a hearty handshake all round”. That changes what the congregation is told to do. Nida (1964, p. 160) judged that it keeps the greeting. So the half this claim found unsupported has an attested rendering of A without P, as competent judges read it, and not only A12’s sentence. The same handbooks document the sufficiency half: where kissing is amorous, a literal “kiss” changes the act.
What it does not supply: reader evidence that the act was kept. The verdicts are divided: the UBS handbook calls it “a brave attempt” and prefers another rendering, and Gayle (2013) denies that the footing survives. It also leaves the defender a reply, that the proposition worth keeping is the coarser “greet one another warmly”. This claim stands as a reading of the manuscript, which still argues only insufficiency. The record now holds a case the manuscript could cite.
Note of 2026-10-28: moved to ARG-021 and ARG-020
This claim is about support: what the manuscript’s renderings show, and where the case against necessity lies. It moved to two arguments, both Rejected: ARG-021, from the manuscript’s renderings to CLAIM-486, which CLAIM-229 judged the same way and which is filed once; and ARG-020, from the compensation hypothesis to CLAIM-486, whose version 1 is this claim’s and whose version 2 is CLAIM-229’s reply. The edge to CLAIM-061 stays as the history of the concession. The text above is unchanged.