The claim
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.” The manuscript states the half in §1: preserving the proposition is not necessary for preserving the communicative event.
CASE-056 is the documented case: Phillips renders Paul’s “holy kiss” as “a hearty handshake all round”, which changes what the verse directs, and Nida judged that it keeps the greeting. CASE-031 was checked as a candidate and does not fill the role: the renderings it reaches change form, register and tone and keep Marot’s propositions (its note of 2026-10-10).
Why it is Proposed
- The manuscript does not argue it (CLAIM-053, granted): it argues insufficiency only.
- The invented case does not show it (CLAIM-229, granted): CASE-018 holds the words fixed and bears on sufficiency only.
- The documented case is contested (CASE-056’s own limits). The verdicts are expert judgements, divided on the residue, with no reader evidence. And the defender of necessity has a reply: the proposition worth keeping is the coarser “greet one another warmly”, which the handshake keeps. That reply is this claim’s defeated_if.
It goes Active if a documented case changes the proposition at every grain a defender could choose, with independent evidence the act was kept.
Note of 2026-10-29: what holds it back
The one documented case, CASE-056, is answered by the defender’s reply that its defeat condition states: the handshake keeps the coarser proposition “greet one another warmly”. No case in the record changes the proposition at every grain a defender could choose, with independent evidence that the act was kept.
Note of 2026-10-30: what holds it back
No case in the record changes the proposition at every grain a defender could choose, with independent evidence that the act was kept. CASE-056, the one documented case, still meets the reply its defeat condition states: the handshake keeps “greet one another warmly”. CASE-056 was revised on 2026-10-30 when Nida’s passages were read first-hand in the Reader reprint. That confirms the quotations and, as its own note says, adds no reader evidence, so its condition (c) still rests on divided expert verdicts.