On 2008-07-04, Red Dragon <agclurker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> emmel wrote:
>> On 2008-07-03, Red Dragon <agclurker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> emmel wrote:
<snip>
>>>> of the room surfaced from the darkness. A couple of man high display
>>>> cases covered the wall opposite
>>> I'm not 100% positive, but you might want to hyphenate 'man high'
>>
>> I think I'll trust you on this one. Hyphenating words is something I
>> never seem to get the hang of.
>
> I need to look some things up myself. But with this, you're basically
> describing (man) a descriptive word (high). And when two descriptive
> words are related like that, generally you connect them with a hyphen,
> making them one word like it's supposed to read.
>
> I hope that makes sense.
::shrugs::
More or less. 'man-high' it is then.
>>>> transparent, only the caps at the ends were opaque and grey. She
>>>> unscrewed the top and placed the trophy inside, then screwed it back
>>>> on and pushed a large button on the bottom ****tion. A lamp next
>>> This is a light on the cylinder next to the button Aya pressed,
correct?
>>> Unless that's a common British usage of lamp I'm unfamiliar with, you
>>> might want to just use 'light.' My American brain immediately jumped
to
>>> the lamp-with-a-shade-and-on-a-table interpretation. Which was briefly
>>> amusing.
>>
>> Well, according to my dictionary 'indicator lamp' is legal, although
>> might prefer 'pilot light'. I think using light here would indeed be
>> better, although amusement, if only brief, is definitely to be valued
>> ;-)
>>
>
> Oh yeah, indicator lamp. That's a valid term. But generally people don't
> use 'lamp' on it's own in that way.
I thing I'll go with light then.
>>>> Fortunately there weren't. She didn't really mind stumbling around in
>>>> mazes that much, but she was on a schedule. Not a terribly tight one,
>>>> that would have been asking for trouble, but she preferred not to
>>>> waste what extra time she had on office layouts. You never knew what
>>>> you might need it for later on. In the office the circular layout of
>>>> the building had been hardly visible, with only the slightest bend
>>>> hinting at it, but that close to the centre it was impossible to
>>>> miss. The whole of the
>>> I'm trying very hard to understand exactly what this first sentence is
>>> telling me. And it's a little ***bersome with all these commas. You
>>> might want to split it up somehow. Watch as I don't help with that. :)
>>
>> Well, the first sentence is refering to the 'more walls not in the
>> plan'. Let's try improving that a bit...
>>
>> Fortunately there weren't any. She didn't really mind stumbling around
>> in mazes, but anything at it's time. And she was on a schedule after
>> all, even if not a terribly tight one. Still, she'd rather not waste
>> what extra time she did have on figuring out office layouts. You never
>> knew if you didn't need it later on.
>>
>> BTW, did your usenet client ignore all the tabs? I'm pretty sure - make
>> that dead sure, I just checked - that there ought to be a line break
>> after 'later on.' and an indentation before 'In the office.'
>
> Actually, I was referring more to the sentence 'In the office the
> circular layout of the building had been hardly visible, with only the
> slightest bend hinting at it, but that close to the centre it was
> impossible to miss.' The one you rewrote actually made perfect sense as
is.
Oh. Probably more like this then:
'The outer wall's curvature had been sligh enough not to be overly
noticeable in the office, but that close to the centre it was impossible
to miss the circular nature of the building.'
Not really that great either, but at the moment I'm at a loss how to
make it more clear. Maybe 'circular' could be replaced by 'concentric',
but I'm not sure about that either.
> And my client gets some of the line breaks and indentions, but
> apparently not all of them.
Oh, that really sucks.
>>> 'To anyone with claustrophobia, this place would have been hell. To
>>> anyone with acrophobia, even more so.'
>>
>> Hm... what about:
>>
>> To anyone with claustrophobia this place would have been hell. To
anyone
>> with acrophobia - more so.
>>
>> I'm not quite comfortable with those commas... Is there any rule these
>> are based on, or are you doing it completely by feeling?
>
> That's a fine rewrite too. I was mostly bothered by trying to make the
> whole thing a single sentence.
>
> And I go by the rules I've learned in writing cl*****, and what feels
> good to me. Admittedly, this is not always flawless, but I haven't
> gotten points off for punctuation abuse and neglect on a college paper
> so far. Commas are there to make sure your readers don't combine the
> words in your sentence in a way you didn't intend.
It's just... German has quite definite rules for that kind of thing,
based on sentence structure - main sentence, auxillary sentence, that
kind of thing. Or at least it had. With the new rules I don't know how
to write *anything* correctly, commas included.
>>>> way, if you could be call it that, matched those of the door, making
>>>> it about a half metre in width and two in height. Unlike a normal
>>>> passage way, however, it abruptly ended after a couple of steps. Not
>>>> in a wall, though - it opened into the core shaft itself. One hundred
>>>> and twenty floors of free fall, sublevels not included, and she
>>>> wasn't even that close to the top. Free fall wasn't what she had
>>>> planned, though. The height wasn't a problem, at least none that a
>>>> good rope couldn't deal with, but at five metres in diameter the
>>>> shaft didn't forgive any wrong move and ending as a smear on the wall
>>>> wasn't that enticing a prospect. Where was that stupid service
>>>> platform anyway? It should have been waiting for her when he came in.
>>>> Aya edged closer to the shaft,
>>> 'when she came in' I assume
>>
>> Yes. I think we can safely rule spontanious gender change out.
>
> Oh good. I was hoping that was not an awkward side effect of being in
> the city or something.
Well, it might, but Aya would probably be immune against it.
>>> I'm not familiar with the phrase 'get a fit over it' I'm pretty sure I
>>> know what you mean, but it's worded slightly differently than how I
know
>>> it. Admittedly, I'm not entirely familiar with British phrases, so
that
>>> might be correct anyway.
>>
>> Hey, neither am I. Looks like it should be '[...] wasn't going to have
a
>> fit over it.' 'get' just doesn't belong there.
>
> Indeed. That's the phrase with which I'm more familiar.
I tend to mix stuff up in my head. It's not like I have a phrases list
or anything, just my memory of stuff I have read or heard. The results
are quite strange sometimes, I can tell you.
>>>> Whoever was responsible for that deserved to die - a slow, painful
>>>> death. She had seen hastily thrown together jury rigs better than
>>>> this... can of worms on a paint diet? Some were still dangling from
>>>> the panel she had lifted off, but most of them were sitting in a
>>>> despicable rubbery goo. Glue. Whatever. It was a wonder the elevator
>>> This use of 'despicable' is a little unusual. I mean, if the glue is
>>> indeed deserving of contempt or scorn, by all means... but a word like
>>> 'vile,' 'disgusting,' or similar might be more appropriate.
>>
>> 'revolting'? And is deserving scorn. Using hot glue to hold cables in
>> place is just so... It's a shooting offence as far as I am concerned.
>
> 'Revolting' is a great word for it. And gluing cables in place does seem
> quite... Inadvisable. To put it lightly.
They did that kind of thing with computers in the early nineties...
well, now you know where that paragraph comes from. Right out of my
heart.
>>>> pushed it open and stepped out of the building, though you would not
>>>> have been able to tell by the looks, but the staircase she was no in
>>> I'm not really sure what you mean here with 'the staircase she was no
in
>>> belonged to the public infrastructure.' Is she on a staircase? In a
>>> staircase? Something else?
>>
>> '[...] stepped out of the building. You wouldn't have been able to tell
>> be the difference, but the staircase in front of her belonged to the
>> public infrastructre.'
>>
>> She is at the foot of a (really high) staircase. The staircase does
>> belong to the public infrastructure, and therefore not to the building.
>> You wouldn't be able to tell by the looks, though.
>
> Ah, now here position is more clear. I feel better about you ending the
> sentence after '[...] stepped out of the building.' but I think you can
> keep the 'looks' part like so:
>
> '[...] stepped out of the building. You wouldn't have been able to
> tell by the looks of it, but the staircase in front of her belonged to
> the public infrastructre.'
If I put an 'already' at the end of the sentence... Should do nicely.
>>>> at a time. Aya, however, was used to rely on her feet for moving
>>>> around - and sometimes knees,
>>> 'relying'
>>
>> Feels a bit odd, but you should know better than me.
>
> Trust me on this one. Grammatically speaking, 'rely' is inappropriate
> for tense of the sentence.
OK
>>>> had put into making exactly this quirk happen. By now Aya had reached
>>>> a door let into the side of the tunnel.
>>> Would this be 'Aya had reached a door that let into the side' or
>>> something else? Such a door that was set into the side of the tunnel.
>>
>> A door let (set) into the side of the tunnel. Any suggestions?
>
> Well, reading the sentence, it would seem 'By now Aya had reached a door
> set into the side of the tunnel.' would be the best choice. The other
> situation I was thinking of involved a door that opened up and lead into
> the side of the tunnel. I suppose that would just be a door with a brick
> wall behind it.
Probably have those too, but Aya wouldn't try to step through them.
> Anyway, that second situation doesn't make sense. Unless you wanted to
> say that she 'reached a door that lead to a side tunnel' or as I
> initially read it, 'reached a door that let into a side tunnel'
Using 'set' instead of 'let' sounds good to me. I kinda likes the 'let'
in there, but it's more im****tant for it to be readable.
>>> Also, 'he wouldn't approve' is more consistent with the sentence.
>>> However, this orphans the next sentence 'And neither did she' which
>>> might be changed to 'She certainly didn't' or similar.
>>
>> 'He wouldn't approve. She knew she wouldn't.'
>> Does that work out OK?
>
> Perfect. Even better.
Ah, a good thing to hear.
>>>> And neither did she. Aya tapped the code into the panel, then stepped
>>>> through the door and into a different world. Where the tunnels had
>>>> been dry and clean, the air smelling of dust, the sewer was wet and
>>>> thick with dirt. Water was everywhere: Flowing down the canal in the
>>>> middle as a muddy stream, oozing from the walls, in the air. Algae
>>>> grew
>>> You might want to tighten up 'Flowing down the canal in the middle as
a
>>> muddy stream.' I lose track of it being part of a list. Possibly just
>>> saying 'Flowing down the canal' and also maybe changing 'thick with
>>> dirt' to 'thick with mud' if you need the mud reference.
>>
>> Let's see...
>>
>> 'Water was everywhere. The muddy stream flowing down the canal in the
>> middle was only a small part of it. It was oozing from the wall,
hanging
>> in the air and the algae growing everywhere didn't make things any
>> better. She had to carefully watch her step, not to slip on the slimy
>> mucus.
>> Nevertheless Aya welcomed the change.'
>
> Ooo, that's good too. I approve.
Good.
>>>> universal constant of life. They were anywhere. On every planet,
>>>> every station, every ****p, adapting to the most adverse environments
>>>> and thriving in places that otherwise incapable of
>>> 'that are otherwise'
>>
>> 'that were otherwise'
>
> Yeah, that's probably better than mine.
::bows::
>>>> sup****ting higher life. Not before the advent of genetical analysis
>>>> anyone had noticed that they weren't even native organisms, that good
>>>> they blended it. Even today, nobody knew where they came from
>>> Ok, this sentence needs a few things...
>>> 'Not before the advent of genetic analysis had anyone noticed that
they
>>> weren't even native organisms, the rats blended in so well.'
>>
>> 'genetic'? Without the 'l'? And I think '[...], they blended in that
>> well.' might even be better, don't you think?
>
> I do think that sounds better. And yes, just genetic is the correct
> word, seeing as genetical isn't actually a word.
Well, I'll change it, but I beg to differ:
Genetical \Ge*net"ic*al\ (j[-e]*n[e^]t"[i^]*kal), a. [See Genesis.]
Pertaining to, concerned with, or determined by, the genesis of
anything, or its natural mode of production or development.
[1913 Webster]
This historical, genetical method of viewing prior systems of
philosophy. --Hare. [1913 Webster]
>>>> originally, only a few rumours that they originated from some
>>>> backwater planet, not even capable of space flight. Even mentioning
>>>> them could sent scientists over the edge. Aya didn't really mind, as
>>> 'could send scientists'
>>
>> Definitely. An artifact from the time where there was no 'could'.
>>
>
> That's a good use of proofreading then. Changing things around always
> leaves weirdness I seem to miss on my own writing.
Yeah, I should *definitely* do proof reading. I'm just that eager to get
things out sometimes...
>>>> sweater deep into her face, but kept her goggles on. They looked
>>> Hmm, 'far over her face' possibly. Again, unless you mean something
else.
>>
>> Well, I meant pulling it over the head and then as far down as
possible,
>> so it would leave the face in shadow, even in broad light. More or
less.
>> Still 'far over her face'?
>
> Maybe 'far down over her face' but yes.
::nods::
>>>> A couple of minutes later she was in the open road, diving into the
>>>> streams of people that even at this time ran through the city. On of
>>>> many, impossible to point out.
>>> I assume you mean 'One of many'. If you wanted to be more specific, it
>>> might read 'Now she was one of many, impossible to point out.' This
is,
>>> of course, how I interpreted the last sentence after a little bit of
>>> thought.
>>
>> Now she was merely one of many; impossible to single out.
>
> Yes, that's a bit more elegant than mine.
Ah, glad to hear that. The single was actually a last minute addition,
that happened shortly after I posted the whole thing. Everytime I *do*
read anything I have written, things start to change. There are maybe a
dozen changes I introduced to Laiva's tale when I recorded the first
paragraphs...
>>> Also, I'm a little self-conscious
>>> about writing. My grammar and spelling capabilities are head and
>>> shoulders above most Americans, but I'm no English major.
>>
>> Compared to me... you are a grammar and spelling god... Or was that
>> godess?
>
> Goddess :)
Ah, had that in the back of my mind, but I wasn't certain.
> And I try. I just constantly fear I might steer you wrong if I start
> messing with your writing. At least I'm in the habit of thinking with
> proper grammar.
Oh, that's not that easy. It's not like I jump at any suggestion, even
if it looks like that. I only change things when I have a good idea why
it ought to be changed.
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)
story backlogs available at http://ranira.wordpress.com
Official AGC feedback maniac
"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."
"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."
"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better... :)
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."
Proud owner of 1 (one) DISOBEDIENCE point.
Former owner of 1 (one) eating point (eaten, sigh).
Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.
|
