[projectaon] Re: Grand Master comment period [Book 13]
- From: "Paulius Stepanas" <pstepanas@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:38:08 +1000
Since I've been putting off checking this, I'm late to
the discussion and a couple of my votes conflict with
changes already implemented. Sorry.
On Tuesday, 10 April 2012 21:01, Simon Osborne wrote:
>
> BOOK 13:
>
> (er) 22: scrabbling his throat -> scrabbling at his throat
I vote for making this change. It very much feels to me that the
verb form, "scrabbling," needs the "at". Contrast this with the
adjectival usage, "scrabbling claws" -- as featured in Magic:
The Gathering! I can't find a definitive usage in a dictionary
or online, but the modified version does sound better to me.
> (er) 35, 153, 201: A patrol of six Vazhag file into the cavern [so:
> Should this be "...files..."?]
Technically, yes. I think it's a question of emphasis. The
correct usage kind of causes the reader to stop for a moment
to mentally check that it's correct, realising that the
object is "a patrol" rather than "six Vazhag." Ironically,
most readers are unlikely to pause with the current version.
I think it's one of those grammatical errors that reads better
than the correct version. If it were a more complex phrase,
I'd fix it. But since I'm not writing it, since it exists in
the original text, and since it does emphasise the fact there's
multiple Vazhag, I vote to leave it, as is.
> (er) 50: plague virus, and its vaccine, are being -> plague virus and its
> vaccine are being
I vote against this change. I believe the author is using the
commas to emphasise that it's not just the plague virus that
is being made here, but also the vaccine.
> (ne) 71: hurtle through air -> hurtle through the air
Yep. The original text has it right (the second version).
> (er) 111: A vast procession of partially-clad soldiers are being -> [so:
> "...is being..."?]
Again, technically, yes. But see above. Cf: "A bunch of
partially-clad soldiers are being led..."
> (er) 191: The chain glances your [so: Should this be "glances off your"?
> If so, this has a knock-on effect to other instances where it is used in this
> way.]
I don't like this usage, but I think it's okay. "Glances off
your shoulder," seems to suggest that the heavy chain is
being diverted in its course by your shoulder, whereas the
way it's written suggests your shoulder is on the losing
end of the transaction.
> (er) 260: Palmyrion plain -> Palmyrion Plain
Not necessarily. You're assuming the plain is named, "The Palmyrion
Plain." The author may just be referring to the plain in Palymyrion;
like, "the plains of Kansas." Failing a second mention in the text
or on a map, I'm inclined to leave this, as is.
> (ne) 284: [so: Lose the comma before the ellipsis.]
I agree. The original doesn't have the ellipsis (breaking the last
choice onto another line must be one of our stylistic changes),
but can also do without the comma here.
> (er) 284: [so: Revise the options layout as per recent discussion regarding
> Book 8.]
Can-of-worms worth of work? :)
> (er) 290: Another curse, and -> He speaks another curse, and [so: Maybe.]
I vote against this change. I think the author is using this
form to heighten the action. It also emphasises that both
curses are acting on the same item.
> (er) 324: forearm and -> forearm, and [so: Serial comma?]
I think I see what you're referring to. There's a sense that
two many clauses are joined together without commas. The
reader might feel that a comma is needed either here or
before "which." However, the latter position would actually
change the meaning of the sentence, so after "forearm" is
a better location.
That said, I don't feel that the problem is severe enough
to bother inserting the extra comma at all. Not that I'd
mind if the consensus were against me.
Having read further into the thread, I like Jonathon's
solution of splitting it into two sentences. Avoids the
problem without changing the flow of the text. Good job.
On to appearances of ", and".
On Thursday, 12 April 2012 21:02 Simon Osborne wrote:
>
> (er) 62: under the blow, and its four companions -> under the blow and its
> four companions
Comma is possibly used for emphasis.
> (er) 84: these creature are -> these creatures are
I agree.
> (er) 85: crude dwellings, and estimate -> crude dwellings and estimate
> [so: probably not.]
Leave. Otherwise, you get run-in with the earlier "and".
> (er) 186: serves as its mouth, and a long tail -> serves as its mouth and a
> long tail
Maybe change. Does the existing comma strengthen the
connection between the tail and what the tail is doing
("swishing furrows")?
> (er) 244: over its shoulder, and eagerly -> over its shoulder and eagerly
> [so: probably not?]
Leave. The comma separates two different actions.
> (er) 265: Upon hearing this the congregation -> Upon hearing this, the
> congregation [so: Maybe?]
If I were writing it, I'd include this comma and another
before "until." But I believe this is one of those cases
where accepted practice goes against my inclination. That
is, I'd expect an editor to drop the comma. So I vote
to leave it, as is.
> (er) 266: this eerie passageway, and you feel a warmth radiating -> this
> eerie passageway and you
> feel a warmth radiating [so: Maybe?]
I like the pause implied by the comma. The author could
have broken the sentence into two at this point. As it
stands, there's three clauses and the last two are linked,
so using a comma to separate the first clause from the
last two makes sense. ie: Leave it.
As a quick footnote, I hate trying to decide where to put commas.
The trend these days is to leave out more and more of them, so
when I write, I initially tend to include too many, then try to
remove some during the edit. I wish I knew some firmer rules
about this, including some information on how these rules have
evolved since the 80s.
As a result of this uncertainty, I will nearly always err on the
side of the existing text in these matters. At least, in the
absence of a firm source to confirm incorrect usage (I'm afraid
Word's grammar check, for example, would not count!).
Hope this all helps rather than hinders!
Paulius
~~~~~~
Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
Other related posts:
