[projectaon] Re: Grand Master comment period [Books 15-20]
- From: Jonathan Blake <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:40:18 -0700
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Simon Osborne <outspaced@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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 to
>>
>>
>> Already 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."
The reason I prefer it the way I do (I don't think this is because I'm
from the US) is because that sentence actually needs a comma between
the independent clauses.
"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."
I see what you mean, but the "and" isn't inside the commas because
it's part of the introductory phrase of that clause. If we take the
second independent clause and make it a full-fledged sentence, it
would probably take a comma after "instant"
"In a terrifying instant, you are flung head-first over the ship’s
rail into the sea."
So I'm suggesting that we use both commas: the one before "and" that
joins the two independent clauses and the one after "instant" that
sets off that introductory phrase.
> 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...
Standardizing on either would require entirely too much effort to be
worth it in my opinion. Unless someone can narrow the focus of my
regular expressions, we'd have to review 2127 occurrences of
"\s(for|and|nor|but|or|yet|so),\s" or 3879 occurrences of
",\s(for|and|nor|but|or|yet|so)\s[^.]+,".
--
Jon
~~~~~~
Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
Other related posts:
