I read it like this: - There may, or may not, exist some WUGs. - The WUGs may, or may not, be DAX. - Even if a WUG is DAX, that doesn't prevent it from being ZONGED. - If nothing else prevents a WUG from being ZONGED, then the WUG can be ZONGED, because its DAXness doesn't have any effect on its ZONGability.
I don't read any "should" in it at all, just "can".
Substitute with some real words, like: No TENNIS PLAYER is too GOOD to be DEFEATED. => All TENNIS PLAYERs can be DEFEATED (assuming GOODness is the only thing determining DEFEATability).
I read it like this:
ReplyDelete- There may, or may not, exist some WUGs.
- The WUGs may, or may not, be DAX.
- Even if a WUG is DAX, that doesn't prevent it from being ZONGED.
- If nothing else prevents a WUG from being ZONGED, then the WUG can be ZONGED, because its DAXness doesn't have any effect on its ZONGability.
I don't read any "should" in it at all, just "can".
Substitute with some real words, like:
No TENNIS PLAYER is too GOOD to be DEFEATED.
=> All TENNIS PLAYERs can be DEFEATED (assuming GOODness is the only thing determining DEFEATability).
I'm with Googlemaster on this one—the sentence only talks about possibility, not what should happen.
ReplyDeleteIt does imply that some people think that DAXness implies unZONGability, and is explicitly deny that assumption.
Yes, could not should.
ReplyDeleteIt could.