This week being a whole lot less busy, I've actually got time to respond straight away.
On 21/08/2012 23:10, Jonathan Blake wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Simon Osborne <outspaced@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:BOOK 17:(er) 180: then turn to -> turn toAlready fixed? If so it doesn't have an errata entry.
Hmm. Might be fixed already in xml, but it's definitely an erratum and present in the final option (then turn to 268) in the test area. <http://www.projectaon.org/test/en/xhtml/lw/17tdoi/sect180.htm>
(er) 182: starboard and in a terrifying instant, you -> starboard and, in a terrifying instant, you [so: cf. Sections 72, 168, 173, etc.]If we really come down to it, I'd prefer to change this to "starboard, and in a terrifying instant, you" or the equivalent in all these cases. The sentence needs a comma between the independent clauses (in this case after "starboard"), but having a comma after "and" isn't necessary. However, tracking down and changing all of these would take a very, very long time. Is this something we can live with?
This might be one of those UK vs. US things, because generally speaking I'm used to seeing the comma after the 'and' rather than before it in this type of sentence construction. The sub-clause (is that the correct term??) here is 'in a terrifying instant', which is why it is 'fenced off by the commas. If you remove the phrase, the sentence works correctly: "The impact sends the ship careering violently to starboard and you are flung head-first over the ship’s rail into the sea."
If you add the 'and' to that sub-clause, though, the sentence breaks if the phrase is removed: "The impact sends the ship careering violently to starboard you are flung head-first over the ship’s rail into the sea."
Either way, in this case the comma use is incorrect and should be fixed, but I'd err more toward the original proposal, which shouldn't require an audit of all the books...I hope...
-- Simon Osborne Project Aon ~~~~~~ Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
