[projectaon] Re: California Countdown Comment Period

  • From: Jonathan Blake <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 18:13:20 +0000

On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 at 03:03 Simon Osborne <outspaced@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


On 08-Oct-15 9:37 PM, Jonathan Blake wrote:
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 at 04:41 Simon Osborne wrote:

Also suggest switching the dashes for commas:

tssf: another HAVOC clan--the Saints--who were based in New Orleans
-> another HAVOC clan, the 'Saints', who were based in New Orleans

Er, you mean switch commas to emdashes, right? Else there's nothing to
change, since commas are used in the original. I've switched to dashes
because I think that's what you meant, but feel free to reverse that
change. ;-)


Sorry I was confused. I've switched the dashes back to the original commas.


(er) 131: Quick Cal -> Quick, Cal

There's another comma right afterwards: "Quick Cal, let's get him
before he gets away." Adding a comma (or possibly breaking this into
two sentences) makes it seem too choppy for the hurried tone of this
passage.

Parallels 192, so I went with "C'mon, Cal. We've..." as proposed below.

(er) 192: C'mon Cal -> C'mon, Cal

Original: C'mon Cal, we've gotta get back

What do you think of "C'mon, Cal. We've gotta get back"?

Done.

(er) 265: C'mon Cal -> C'mon, Cal

Same hurried tone as 131?

Thing is, a comma is not supposed to convey a pause (though its use does
often coincide with one), it's there to bracket the name in the
sentence. (See Rule 5 on this page:
<http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/commas.asp> ) It doesn't convey
Rickenbacker slowing down in his delivery.



Also affects 326.


True, I was just trying to avoid something like "C'mon, Cal, let's take
him" which seems a little stilted to me. Technically, the comma doesn't
convey a pause, but it does slow down reading, especially if someone
subvocalizes while reading, which most people do.

Having said that, let's go ahead with the "C'mon, Cal. Let's" pattern in
all of the above.

(er) 350: Your reputation is further glorified [SO: is "glorified"
appropriate? Would "enhanced" be more accurate?]

Maybe so, but it doesn't seem like "glorified" is exactly wrong
either.

I'm just not sure its correct to say a 'reputation can be glorified'.
Sounds very odd to be.


It seems a little odd to me too. I might have chosen to use "fame" or
something similar, but I can't see a reason that it's incorrect here.

I've updated the XML. If there are no further issues, I'll work on getting
it published tomorrow.

--
Jon

Other related posts: