Context is everything, and a question like this isn't answerable without
reference outside a strictly linguistic realm. In the real world, we know
that,UN peacekeepers are currently forbidden to take offensive military
actions. As a result, they have sometimes been forced to stand by as
helpless people have been raped and slaughtered. In the face of atrocities,
should they be allowed to fight the perpetrators?

In a strictly linguistic context, there are other interpretations. When,
however, we add information from the actual world, we can discern an
intended interpretation.

By the way, if we ignore context, we could also debate whether "power"
meant "firepower" or "authority." With context, we understand the latter.

Dick Veit

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Scott Woods <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear List,
>
> In the following sentence, would you interpret the term "peacekeepers" as
> meaning "all peacekeepers" or "some peacekeepers"?
>
>     United Nations peacekeepers should have the power to engage in
>     offensive operations.
>
> This is a current debate topic in high school debate. The affirmative side
> would like to limit the scope of the resolution to "some," while the
> negative would like to force the affirmative to argue for "all."
>
> How could each side support their claim? What linguistic theories or
> arguments could be brought into play to support each side?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Scott Woods
>
>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
> leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/