[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.
Done.
>> (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!
--
Jon
~~~~~~
Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
Other related posts:
