[projectaon] Re: Grand Master comment period [Book 13]

  • From: Jonathan Blake <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 11:46:38 -0700

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:38 AM, Paulius Stepanas <pstepanas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

I hear what you're saying, but I think it reads better with "files".

>> (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.

The commas don't seem to emphasize it for me. To emphasize it, I have
to read it as if "vaccine" were italicized. If the commas were meant
to emphasize this, I don't think they're doing their job.

>> (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.

Then wouldn't it be "the Palmyrion plains" or "the plains of
Palmyrion"? If there was such a place as the Kansas plain then I think
it would be "the Kansas Plain".

>> (er) 284: [so: Revise the options layout as per recent discussion regarding 
>> Book 8.]
> Can-of-worms worth of work? :)

I haven't heard back whether everyone is OK with the following option
which is pretty close to the original:

If you do not possess this Grand Master Discipline, you can
investigate either the east tunnel by turning to 118 ...

or the west tunnel by turning to 189.

The other option proposed was:

If you do not possess this Grand Master Discipline, you can
investigate either the east tunnel by turning to 118

... or the west tunnel by turning to 189.

The second option makes it obvious that the last choice is a
continuation of the previous one, but it makes me feel like the
previous one is missing end punctuation.

We could go whole hog:

If you do not possess this Grand Master Discipline, you can
investigate either the east tunnel by turning to 118.

Or you can investigate the west tunnel by turning to 189.

>> (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.

I'll leave it then.

>> (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.

I'm switching back to this then. :) Even though it's choppy, I think
that's what the author was going for here.

> On Thursday, 12 April 2012 21:02 Simon Osborne wrote:

>> (er) 85: crude dwellings, and estimate -> crude dwellings and estimate
>> [so: probably not.]
> Leave. Otherwise, you get run-in with the earlier "and".

That "and" actually joins the two halves of a noun phrase. It's not a
coordinating conjunction.

> Hope this all helps rather than hinders!

Thanks for your feedback!


Manage your subscription at http://www.freelists.org/list/projectaon

Other related posts: