The claim
A12: “A translation doesn’t merely reconstruct what is said; it reconstructs the situation of its saying. I particularly like the second formulation because it gets at the question your example raises: a translation must somehow recreate not only a text, but an act of communication.”
Where it went
Last present at A12. At U8 the owner asked for the “native vernacular” of speech-act theory, and A14 restated the point as footing, stance and force; the situation as such was not mentioned again in owner turns U1–U13. Nothing argued against it. Recovered, as the exchange’s best one-line statement of what CLAIM-061 is for.
What it does not say
Not that a translation must reproduce the source’s situation: Henley moved Villon’s into another century (CASE-010). It must reconstruct one that plays the same role. Weaker than the manuscript’s central thesis (CLAIM-115) in one respect and stronger in another: it names what is reconstructed, but not who must be able to recover it.
Note of 2026-10-27: stated in the live term
The status review of this date (ADR-057) found this claim using TERM-035, which is Superseded. It now uses TERM-030: the situation of saying is TERM-030’s configuration of the communicative situation. The claim’s status is not changed by this.
Note of 2026-10-30: what holds it back
Its defeat condition is a comparative null with no margin over an observable set (CLAIM-238): “as often as when they can” has no margin, so nothing could meet it. It needs restating with a margin and a fixed judged attribute before a ruling. No renderings have been rated for recoverable speaker, audience and attitude; CLAIM-061 holds one case of the converse.