[projectaon] Re: Errata Sprint Addendum #1 -- Sing. vs. pl.*
- From: Simon Osborne <outspaced@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 22:13:12 +0100
On 03/07/2011 20:04, Timothy Pederick wrote:
On 4 July 2011 01:54, Simon Osborne wrote:
So, all that was the deep breath before the plunge: here comes the
Battle of the Errata Fields.
Somewhere in the city behind, a cock crowed, recking nothing of Wizard
or Wolf...
*ahem*
It sounds like you're saying we've got precedents already set for these,
Simon, but as I'm not sure what those precedents are, I'm just going to
go through them all (and try to be consistent with my own opinions, at
least).
Yup, I pretty much am saying that. :-)
I was most impressed with Ben's reasoning and comments on the recent
Errata Sprint (sing. vs. pl.) so I think we have enough of an idea
between us to look at the grammar and at Jon's decisions and recent
precedent and come to a correct decision on most of these.
Actually, I seem to have come up with some easily summarised rules for
my opinions...
This was useful for me. I guess we should eventually write a PAMoS entry
for this issue.
And I've come up with these rules to explain my feelings on...
I've summarised the comments both of yourself and Ben so I'll post them
in an easier-to-read format. Note that I've added a couple based on the
existing comments (marked **).
BOOK 26:
TO FIX
(er) 8, 31, 183, 244: the first wave of the Shom'zaa horde reach -> the
first wave of the Shom'zaa horde reaches
[tp: Agreed <collective> of <collective> = singular (e.g. "the first
wave of the horde comes") ]
**(er) 178: horde are -> horde is [lm]
[tp: <collective> = singular (e.g. "a horde comes") ]
**(er) 33 [Cap]: encircles your basket -> encircle your basket
(er) 280: the Shom'zaa horde attempt -> the Shom'zaa horde attempts
[tp: Agreed <collective> = singular (e.g. "a horde comes"), in most cases.]
**(er) 57: The horde hits -> The horde hit
So do these fit with recent decisions for consistency? Please check the
additional ones that I've added based on Rejections and other comments
(see below).
UNSURE
(er) 197: more than half of his army are -> ? more than half of his army
is
[tp: Agreed <collective> = singular (e.g. "a horde comes"), in most cases.]
[bk: I would say the meaning actually changes depending on whether we go
with the original or the proposed change. As written, I'm imagining
various members of the army independently going missing until more than
half are unaccounted for. With the proposed change, I'm imagining a
single regiment comprising more than half the army going missing. Which
meaning do we want? (Perhaps if we want to clarify it as the first
meaning, we should change it to something like "more than half the
members of his army".) ]
[tp: I don't see it quite that way. I do agree that the singular form
implies the missing troops are aggregated in some way, but that could be
lost in a single battle, deserted en masse, or just "all missing because
of this Agarashi business". :-) ]
Since this seems to be more complex than a singular vs. plural issue,
I'm happy for us to keep these comments and not resolve this, but leave
it for Jon to arbitrate in the future.
TO REJECT
(er) 8, 31, 183, 226, 244:horde are -> horde is [lm]
[tp: <collective> = singular (e.g. "a horde comes") ]
[bk: This one should be rejected per rule 2 ("a battle-frenzy that
drives them like demons") ]
(er) 13: a volley of deadly shafts come -> a volley of deadly shafts
comes
[tp: Reject <collective> of <plural> = plural (e.g. "a volley of arrows
come") ]
(er) 33: a swarm of large wasp-like insects pour out of this hole and
encircle -> a swarm of large wasp-like insects pours out of this hole
and encircles [lm: cf. caption to illustration]
[tp: Reject <collective> of <plural> = plural (e.g. "a volley of arrows
come") ]
(er) 131: line of empty ore wagons stand -> line of empty ore wagons
stands
[tp: Reject <collective> of <plural> = plural (e.g. "a volley of arrows
come") ]
(er) 143: The horde hit -> The horde hits [lm: cf. ref. 57]
[tp: Agreed <collective> = singular (e.g. "a horde comes"), in most cases]
[bk: Again, per rule 2 "the War-Thanes fight them" should make it a
rejection. I'm not sure if this is what you intended, but the way I see
it is basically anywhere a collective noun is referred to with a plural
pronoun in the same sentence, the verb should be plural (except in very
rare cases where the plural pronoun should be changed to a singular).]
[tp: That's more or less how I feel about it, yes. It's interesting to
note that "hit" vs. "hits" is the one and only difference between
sections 57 and 143. Padding, Mr Dever? :-P]
(er) 178: the horde raise their weapons and come -> the horde raises
their weapons and comes
[tp: Reject. (When talking about "their weapons", I think the plural
sounds better. "The horde raises their weapons" is just wrong, and "the
horde raises its weapons" sounds clumsy.) ]
(er) 202: crew of the Cloud-dancer have -> crew of the Cloud-dancer has
[tp: Reject.]
(er) 202: A unit of King Ryvin's élite War-Thanes have -> A unit of King
Ryvin's élite War-Thanes has
[tp: Reject <collective> of <plural> = plural (e.g. "a volley of arrows
come") ]
(er) 300: A group of six large, two-footed creatures have -> A group of
six large, two-footed creatures has
[tp: Reject <collective> of <plural> = plural (e.g. "a volley of arrows
come") ]
(er) 318: a volley of arrows whistle -> ? a volley of arrows whistles
[tp: Reject <collective> of <plural> = plural (e.g. "a volley of arrows
come") ]
Okay, so all these are to be Rejected (pending final comments over the
next few days). This sounds about right to me; the Week 9 Errata Sprint
had a Reject to Fix ratio of just over 2:1, as does this list right now.
So I think we're probably heading in the right direction with these.
THE OMEGA ZONE
(er) Dateline to Destruction: HAVOC attempt ->? HAVOC attempts
(er) Dateline to Destruction: HAVOC hijack ->? HAVOC hijacks
(er) Dateline to Destruction: broadcast ->? broadcasts
(er) Dateline to Destruction: HAVOC refuse ->? HAVOC refuses
(er) Dateline to Destruction: HAVOC repeat ->? HAVOC repeats
(er) Dateline to Destruction: extend ->? extends
(er) Dateline to Destruction: HAVOC enact ->? HAVOC enacts
Hmm... I'm undecided. Both sound acceptable, and editorial minimalism is
warring with consistent application of rule 1.
We have made large changes in the recent past (Drakkar/im etc.), so that
shouldn't hold us back from *correcting* things; on the other hand, are
these definitely wrong? HAVOC is consistently construed as plural across
the entire four-book series EXCEPT:
(er) 03toz 302: HAVOC was -> HAVOC were
Should we therefore change this one occurrence and leave the others
alone? Or should we standardise the others to singular?
(er) 42: The colony have begun the break-out! -> The colony
has begun the break-out!
Again, undecided; again, rule 1 vs. not changing it.
For "colony", the waters are muddier. I've done a quick check, and
"colony is" appears more frequently than "colony are":
"colony are":
01hh 39, 01hh 230; 02smr 168; 03toz 350
"colony is":
01hh 1, 93, 100, 178, 327; 02smr 252; 04cc 204, 293, 305
"colony were":
03toz 102
"colony was":
01hh Cal's Story, 318; 02smr tssf; 03toz tssf; 04cc tssf [x3]
I'm not bright enough to tell if this is nuanced (i.e. whether both
uses--are/were vs. is/was--are correct given the context), but my mere
mortal mind would guess not, and that we should probably standardise
this to one or the other. To my untrained eye "colony is/was" seems
preferable to "colony was/were". Any thoughts?
REJECT
(er) 151: a group of clansmen turn the corner and come running
towards you -> a group of clansmen turns the corner and comes
running towards you
Reject, rule 3.
Good. I'd already earmarked this for Rejection, so maybe I'm starting to
understand this. :-)
FIX
(er) 165, 243: a handful of faded family photographs stands
-> a handful of faded family photographs stand
Agreed, rule 3.
...and I'd also earmarked this for this for Fixing. :-D
--
Simon Osborne
Project Aon
~~~~~~
Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
Other related posts:
