[projectaon] Re: Tabletop Heroes
- From: Simon Osborne <outspaced@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:54:48 +0000
OToole L wrote:
Simon wrote:
Phew! 16 pages down, only 44 more to go. Ahem. :-/
Not when I'm also going through the document and have new errata for those "completed" 16 pages.
I meant "...from Tim Pederick". It was obvious you'd post hundreds more issues
for the first 16 pages! :-p
A few things before I get to the nitty-gritty:
1) I've only made it through the first third of the document (up to page 20)
so far. Given this rate I may not finish this weekend as I'd hoped. But for a
few reasons I wanted to send what I had now. (Partly so Simon could get started
and partly because I want to find out whether I'm raising false positives with
some things.)
OK, that's fair. As things stand, I've had something dumped on me this week, so
I can't guarantee to be too responsive before Friday (though I never say never),
so that's actually quite helpful. That's not to say not to post any other lists,
Laurence, Tim; I might just be slower than normal in responding to E-mail before
Friday.
2) LeRoy wrote:
throughout the columns, mr. dever used company names as plural nouns.
Should there be an entry in the PAMOS formalising that all company names should
be treated as singular?
The PAMoS generally refers to the gamebooks, which do not have this problem. If
we remember that company names should be treated as singular, that'll be good
enough.
3) Company names also caused me some trouble for another reason. It seems that
the general practice is to put the name in italics. However, if the entire
sentence/paragraph is in italics, then this emphasis is achieved by removing
this formatting from the company name. This is the rule I have followed.
Yes, that's the correct method.
4) Both LeRoy and Tim caught several things that I missed. I have tried to
avoid duplicating anything they said, unless it was unavoidable. I agree with
any suggestions that are not included here.
And I agree with anything removed from the mammoth list.
Page 4, column 1:
(LeRoy)
mace; a => mace, a
I don't see what's wrong with the original.
I'm no grammarian, so explaining is tricky. Basically, the text after the
semi-colon is not a self-contained clause, and so should not be separated off as
such. I think. This holds true for other similar issues LeRoy raised.
Citadel's -> remove italics on the 's'.
Gah! This is a right pain! I think I have now caught and fixed all instances of
"[company]'s" in the document, unitalicising the trailing 's'.
the Citadel Compendium -> remove 'the', not a unique publication, neither part
of the name (maybe?)
No, this is OK as it is.
Page 9, column 3:
(Simon)
thieves guild to -> Thieves' Guild to
I disagree. -> thieves' guild (A guild does not get capital letters just for
being a gulid.)
Page 9, lower caption:
Thieves -> thieves
Citadel Guild -> citadel guild (maybe?)
Fritz Leiber's Lankhmar stories (e.g. Swords against Deviltry) were about the
Thieves' Guild of Lankhmar, I believe. Also, PA capitalises specific guilds,
e.g. the Guild of City Criers in Book 6.
Page 11, column 1:
What is '(P13/1d)'? Some kind of miniature range label?
Ral Partha's miniatures product code system, I guess. It's unusual, but not
unprecedented. The Citadel ones were not much better.
(LeRoy)
Night Goblin range; a => Night Goblin range, a
I don't see what's wrong here.
Not a self-contained clause after the original semi-colon. See above.
(LeRoy)
altar and victim; all => altar and victim -- all
I don't see what's wrong here.
Not a self-contained clause after the original semi-colon. See above.
(Tim)
customer's requirements -> customers' requirements
Disagree. The word 'customer' is singular, as it specifically says "individual
customer's requirements".
I know what you mean, I found this very tricky to call. However, I think Tim is
correct because of the wording of the sentence.
...they can supply small accessories to individual customers’ requirements.
vs.
...they can supply small accessories to an individual customer's requirements.
Although "individual" gives the impression of being singular, in this instance
it is not qualified as being singular by the use of an article, either definite
or indefinite. Therefore, we can have groups (plural) of individuals (singular).
Citadel may have many *customers*, all of whom have *individual* requirements.
I've changed it to read: "...customers' individual requirements" for clarity.
Page 11, column 3:
(LeRoy)
High Elf; the flag => High Elf, the flag
I don't see what's wrong here.
Not a self-contained clause after the original semi-colon. See above.
(LeRoy)
Small details, lettering and => Small details, lettering, and
I could just about see this scanning without the serial comma, in that
lettering and outlining are both small details compared to the overall size of
the flag, but concede that this may not be the original intent.
I've gone with LeRoy's proposal.
Page 12, column 1:
(LeRoy)
'tech no-junk' =>??? 'techno-junk'
I don't get this either.
OCR artefact. It should read 'techno-junk'.
Is 'TTG' an acceptable acronym for 'Tabletop Games'?
Presumably? These articles are over 20 years old now.
Page 12, column 3:
Toughened armour plate -> Toughened plate armour (maybe?) (This sounds strange
to me as written.)
I'll go with the original. Some of my friends have been wargamers in the past,
and they referred to it as "armour plate".
(Tim)
light sabres -> lightsabres
I hate to point it out, but if we're going to use a term from Star Wars, it might
have to be -> lightsabers (As per starwars.com)
Did any SW rules for role-play or wargaming get released in the UK? Did they use
the UK or US version of sabre? I have no idea, so for now, I'll opt with the
"proper" spelling of sabre! ;-)
(Tim)
Fig 1: Shows -> Fig 1 shows [tp: Maybe?]
I see where you're going, but this would make it the only 'Fig N' that is not
followed by a semi-colon.
(-> Fig 1: This shows) (Maybe?) (or remove 'shows' entirely) (Maybe?)
Inconsistency can be fun, as long as it doesn't occur consistently. ;-)
Page 14, column 2:
What is a 'Landragon'?
Anyone's guess! Looks like a dinosaur to me. It's correct as per the original
text, though.
Page 16, column 1:
(LeRoy)
is colour; which colours => is colour -- which colours
I don't see what's wrong here.
Not a self-contained clause after the original semi-colon. See above.
Page 16, column 3:
joints, hands and feet -> joints, hands, and feet
You mean, "joints, hands, and face", right? ;-)
Page 19, column 1:
(LeRoy)
quality brushes, therefore => quality brushes; therefore
I don't see what's wrong here.
LeRoy's suggestion reads better to me.
(LeRoy)
look after it; store => look after it: store
I don't see what's wrong here.
Using a colon here is more precise: it leads on to an important rule that should
be remembered.
the thinners bottle -> the thinner's bottle (maybe?)
No, I don't /think/ so. Thinners is one of those annoying words that is always a
plural noun, and I don't think it requires the possessive apostrophe in this
instance, since we're not discussing the bottle that belongs to the thinners,
but the bottle of thinners. Maybe. I'll leave as-is.
The chart below -> The chart across
I changed it to "The accompanying chart", which sounds better.
but ones cast in resin -> but with ones cast in resin
I changed this to "...but cast in resin...", which sounds better to my ears.
Page 19, paints guide:
Cellulose: large metal/wood metals -> ??? large metal/wood-metals (maybe?) (I
don't know what he's trying to say here.)
I have no idea what he means here. I'll leave alone unless/until someone can
explain what is meant!
Page 20, column 1:
(LeRoy)
in this fashion, and => in this fashion -- and
The original reads fine to me.
(LeRoy)
the figure, otherwise => the figure; otherwise
I don't see what's wrong here.
Both of these are more accurate per LeRoy's proposals.
(LeRoy)
parts thinner; about the => parts thinner: about the
I don't see what's wrong here.
It works better with a colon, IMHO.
Page 20, column 2:
texture, e.g. quilting and armour (especially chainmail, are -> texture (e.g.
quilting and armour (especially chainmail)),
(I know this looks *horrible*, but I don't like that 'e.g.' mid-sentence.)
(Even if this is rejected, the missing closing bracket still needs fixing.)
I'll leave the mid-sentence e.g., but I've fixed the missing parenthesis.
(LeRoy)
(rubbing when handled) => ??? (they rub off when handled)
I think the original could just about stand unaltered. Failing this, ->
(rubbing off when handled) (maybe?)
I prefer "(they rub off..." to "(rubbing off...".
Page 20, column 3:
their primitive-tech' creations -> their primitive-tech creations (maybe?)
I altered this to 'primitive-tech' since it seems to be coining a new term.
I also fixed the annoying un-italicised 'is' after 'Tabletop Heroes' on many of
the pages.
I am glad that's all over. 40 pages from Laurence, 44 pages from Tim to go. Oh,
what joy! :-p
--
Simon Osborne
Project Aon
~~~~~~
Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
Other related posts:
