[projectaon] Re: Tabletop Heroes - 2 issues.
- From: "Timothy Pederick" <pederick@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:38:22 +0800
2008/8/12 Jonathan Blake <blake.jon@xxxxxxxxx>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:39 PM, <pamail.cgi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > (First issue)
> > Page 36, first column, second paragraph:
> > One general photographic principle is that the greater the distance
> between lens and subject the greater the depth of field[.] -> One general
> phogotraphic principle is: the greater the distance between lens and subject
> the greater the depth of field[.]
> >
> > I just can't get this sentence to read properly with the word 'that' in
> it.
>
> This is in my opinion one example of perfectly cromulent
> conversational English which doesn't conform to typical prescriptive
> grammar. The suggested colon is improper since it divides the
> predicate from the predicate nominative. The only suggestion I would
> make is to add a comma: "subject, the greater".
I would go for a comma too. Let me try to explain (poorly though it may be;
I think I'm missing some key grammatical terms).
"The *comparative*, the *comparative*" is a quite acceptable English idiom,
despite lacking any verbs, but only when it stands alone. It's a unitary
construct, isolated from the grammatical flow of the sentence around it. The
use of "that" breaks this isolation; it no longer reads correctly because it
now sounds like it needs a verb or two:
"...principle is that the greater the distance *is*, the greater the depth
of field *is*."
A colon seems like too sharp a separation to me, so that's why I'd support a
comma:
"...principle is, the greater the distance between lens and subject, the
greater the depth of field."
I have no opinion on the second point as I don't recognise "Student's" and
don't know how it's classified here.
--
Tim Pederick
Other related posts: