On 19 June 2011 06:10, Simon Osborne <outspaced@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This implies that Lone Wolf has to walk at least 40 miles plus ascend 2 > miles in the air to complete his mission, all within 48 hours. I know that > he's a Kai Grand Master, but this seems to be a bit optimistic on Rimoah's > part! Still, Lone Wolf manages it so I guess I should stop complaining ;)]" > If it were a hiking expedition, Naismith's Rule<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naismith%27s_Rule>would say it takes just over 45 hours. I think it's plausible, given that Lone Wolf is a Grand Master and can no doubt manage a two-day hike without rest and faster than average, but it does underscore just how desperate a mission this is. (er) 10, 213: the commotion, and your presence, has -> the > commotion, and your presence, have [LeRoy McSwain, Jan 2007] > Ooh, do we make the clause in commas strictly parenthetical (i.e. the sentence must read correctly without it -- so "...the commotion has..." is right), or treat "commotion" and "presence" merely as a plural? > (er) 69: man who you are seeking -> man whom you are seeking [LeRoy > McSwain, Jan 2007] > Yup. > (er) 307: Its sheer size and strength enables -> Its sheer size and > strength enable [LeRoy McSwain, Jan 2007] > While this fix seems right enough, for some reason construing "size and strength" as singular seems more natural to me... Dialectal usage, I guess. I say fix it. (er) 328: from best Durenese oak -> from the best Durenese oak [LeRoy > McSwain, Jan 2007] > Like Ben, I read this as comparable to "finest Durenese oak", but somehow more awkward than that. I'm undecided. (er) 8, 339: greystone -> grey stone > The real question is, do we treat this as simply describing stone that is grey, or is it a specific stone, like bluestone? (er) 12: to find out who they are -> to find out who it is [LeRoy > McSwain, Jan 2007: singular to agree with antecedent 'somebody'] > Agreed. (er) 124: everyone gets to their feet -> all get to their feet [LeRoy > McSwain, Jan 2007] > I don't see a problem with the original. > (er) 185: towheaded -> tow-headed [??] > No, "towhead" and "towheaded" are the correct forms, as far as I know. (er) 14: "a horde of undead warriors leap -> a horde of undead > warriors leaps [LeRoy McSwain, Mar 2007] > [TP: Disagreed. Nouns like 'horde' are often interchangeable between > singular and plural forms, depending on whether they are construed as being > 'a group treated as one entity' or 'a number of...' (cf. 'some', 'lots': > 'some of my friends are coming', not 'is coming').]" > Wow. These comments from me must have come at a time when I was a lot more willing to commit to one side or the other of singular vs. plural issues! :-P Nowadays I say to go with whatever precedent we've established, if any. I seem to have the completely unresearched impression that we've been lately construing collective nouns like "horde" as singular (which would mean this is to be fixed). But please don't take my word for it. That said, I still stand by my opinion that construing "trio" as plural is preferable, and that "score" is *definitely* plural. :-) > (er) 196: a row of pillars topple -> a row of pillars topples [LeRoy > McSwain, Mar 2007] > This too sounds better to me as a plural (i.e. reject). -- Tim Pederick