Having characterized himself as “godless,” Oidipous describes his parents as ἀνοσίων, by which he also presumably means “abandoned by the gods” (Kamerbeek 248), although the word’s primary meaning is “unholy” or “impious.” The root ὅσιος carries the idea, “sanctioned by the law of God” (LSJ). The audience can now see that, rather than abandoning Laios and Iokaste, the gods were necessitated to make an example of them for insisting on doing what Apollo had explicitly forbidden. [P] [Aj] Thus, where Oidipous means “abandoned by the gods,” the word correctly expresses the fact that Laios and Iokaste were impious. Oidipous’s false assumptions about the gods has led him to make a false statement that can also be understood to express the truth. [Gd] Whether Apollo is in fact speaking now through double entendre, the potential for a reversal in meanings suggests that ambiguity can be as useful as might be damaging. Here the reversal of meanings, from false to true, is the inverse of what happened when Oidipous misinterpreted a helpful Delphic communication. This suggests that ambiguity provides maneuvering room useful to both Apollo and the mortals who consult him. One should therefore view the ambiguity of speech, including divine speech, not as a liability (as was commonly thought), but an opportunity. The god intends his communications to be helpful; whether they prove in fact to be helpful or harmful depends upon how the mortal recipient handles the communicative exchange. Interpreting divine speech accurately must begin with the assumption that one can rely upon the gods–and Apollo in particular–to uphold their side of the relationship with mortals. Oidipous at Delphi far too quickly jumped to the opposite conclusion. Mortals must understand that the benefits of divine communication depend upon them to seek instruction, to ascertain that they have properly clarified any ambiguities in the language of which the communication consists, and assiduously to comply with the instructions given. [Da] [Mipd]