On 17/11/2010 15:31, Thomas Wolmer wrote:
2010/11/17 Simon Osborne<outspaced@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:On 16/11/2010 08:31, pamail.cgi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:The following was sent from the Editor's Companion form From: Jan Charvát<ch.honza@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: 08:31:38 on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (??) 05sots 155: To the north, a road stretches across the causeway to the town of Chula, just visible on the horizon. -> To the east, a road stretches across the causeway to the town of Chula, just visible on the horizon. [jc: As your are looking from the south wall, you simply won't be able to look to the north. (Compare with the Map)] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Surely, "To the south..." would be more appropriate, in view of the line of the road crossing the dry salt bed?No, Chula lies to the east, and the road to Chula crosses (in a slightly twist manner) the northern part of Lake Inrahim on said causeway.
No, I don't think so. According to the map (<http://www.projectaon.org/en/xhtml/lw/05sots/maplarge.htm>) the roadway skirts the northern 'shore' of Lake Inrahim; the causeway seems to run from NNW to SSE across the eastern edge of the lake. (You can see a strip of the lake to the right of this roadway on the map.)
Actually, why does it say "the causeway" when the causeway hasn't been introduced yet? "a causeway" would be better.
Because there's only one causeway, and in English that can be how the definite article is used. On the other hand, it might make more sense to use 'a' instead of 'the'.
Why doesn't English make sense and just work!? >_< -- Simon Osborne Project Aon ~~~~~~ Manage your subscription at http://www.freelists.org/list/projectaon