Difference between revisions of "User talk:NormalPerson7"
m (-typo) |
(Reply to Bwijn.) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Well, you thought the syntax had been allright and reverted my edit. While I'm not a native speaker but as an academic I'm accustomed to read and write English at a high level. And indeed I still don't understand the logic of that phrasing with "not" in the given case. Please explain it carefully! Or even better find a new phrasing that avoids the tricky spot? Please convince me that you really knew what you did. If so, it should be quite easy. -- [[User:Bwijn|Bwijn]] ([[User talk:Bwijn|talk]]) 16:40, 24 January 2019 (CET) | Well, you thought the syntax had been allright and reverted my edit. While I'm not a native speaker but as an academic I'm accustomed to read and write English at a high level. And indeed I still don't understand the logic of that phrasing with "not" in the given case. Please explain it carefully! Or even better find a new phrasing that avoids the tricky spot? Please convince me that you really knew what you did. If so, it should be quite easy. -- [[User:Bwijn|Bwijn]] ([[User talk:Bwijn|talk]]) 16:40, 24 January 2019 (CET) | ||
| + | : Sure. The full sentence is | ||
| + | Being able to generate clouds of smoke and fog on demand is incredibly powerful when used correctly - it allows you to block out all threats [that are] not within a 2 tile radius of you, [...] | ||
| + | : This means that, with the cloak of the Thief, you can ignore ("block out") threats outside a 2-tile radius of you because they can't see you through the fog. If you remove the "not", the meaning here becomes that you can ignore threats inside the 2-tile radius (which implies that you can then focus on threats further than 2 tiles away). The "that are" is implied here, however I do agree that the lack of "that are" makes it less clear. | ||
| + | : I have therefore changed the sentence to include the words "that are" to make this clearer, and also changed "block out" to "ignore", since this is less colloquial. Hope that clears things up :) --[[User:NormalPerson7|NormalPerson7]] ([[User talk:NormalPerson7|talk]]) 21:04, 24 January 2019 (CET) | ||
Revision as of 21:04, 24 January 2019
Welcome to CrawlWiki! If you need help getting started, please visit the help section and how to help,
If you are looking for something to do, check out the Current projects page.
If you have any questions about this wiki you can talk to other editors here. Just remember to sign those posts with four tildes: ~~~~ (or click the signature button).
Cloak of the Thief
Well, you thought the syntax had been allright and reverted my edit. While I'm not a native speaker but as an academic I'm accustomed to read and write English at a high level. And indeed I still don't understand the logic of that phrasing with "not" in the given case. Please explain it carefully! Or even better find a new phrasing that avoids the tricky spot? Please convince me that you really knew what you did. If so, it should be quite easy. -- Bwijn (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2019 (CET)
- Sure. The full sentence is
Being able to generate clouds of smoke and fog on demand is incredibly powerful when used correctly - it allows you to block out all threats [that are] not within a 2 tile radius of you, [...]
- This means that, with the cloak of the Thief, you can ignore ("block out") threats outside a 2-tile radius of you because they can't see you through the fog. If you remove the "not", the meaning here becomes that you can ignore threats inside the 2-tile radius (which implies that you can then focus on threats further than 2 tiles away). The "that are" is implied here, however I do agree that the lack of "that are" makes it less clear.
- I have therefore changed the sentence to include the words "that are" to make this clearer, and also changed "block out" to "ignore", since this is less colloquial. Hope that clears things up :) --NormalPerson7 (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2019 (CET)
