Minor news message text issues

injury log · 08-01-2007, 08:03 AM

From the english.xml file:

-In id 17519 ("There are moments in a player's career that they will not soon forget...") the apostrophe in "player's" doesn't print correctly (perhaps you've caught that already). In addition, grammatically, it should be 'that he will not soon forget', since the subject is singular ('a player');

-id 4966 and id 18763 both refer to a player 'on the backside of his career'. Surely 'backside' isn't the right word here? The only definition of 'backside' given by my dictionary is 'buttocks'. I'm guessing 'downside' or something similar is intended;

-not a typo, but I've just seen news message 14872, which can occasionally incorrectly describe a no-hitter as a shutout (see image below).

tysok- Do you make the corrections to the text files? if I find more of these, should I just send them to you directly by PM?

Tony M · 08-01-2007, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by injury log

From the english.xml file:

-In id 17519 ("There are moments in a player's career that they will not soon forget...") the apostrophe in "player's" doesn't print correctly (perhaps you've caught that already). In addition, grammatically, it should be 'that he will not soon forget', since the subject is singular ('a player');

That's a tricky one. I think because the subject has an indefinite article the plural is the more suited for the follow on clause

There are moments in the player's career that he will not soon forget.

With a definite article you have a link to an earlier mentioned player, otherwise it makes no sense, and with that you can then refer to he/she.

With the indefinite article you don't have that link.

Tony M · 08-01-2007, 08:14 AM

And the main definition of bewildered is 'to confuse or befuddle' so is it actually needed when befuddled is there?

injury log · 08-01-2007, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redsoxford

That's a tricky one. I think because the subject has an indefinite article the plural is the more suited for the follow on clause

There are moments in the player's career that he will not soon forget.

With a definite article you have a link to an earlier mentioned player, otherwise it makes no sense, and with that you can then refer to he/she.

With the indefinite article you don't have that link.

Things are certainly clearer when a definite article is used. Still, if I simplify the sentence:

"There are things in a man's life that he likes."
v.
"There are things in a man's life that they like."

I can't see a grammatical justification for the second version, unless 'they' refers to someone other than 'a man' (friends or family, etc); indeed, that's how I read the sentence- some other unmentioned group of people likes things in a man's life. In the first example, there is at least the possibility that 'he' refers to 'a man'.

One other text issue, of the most minor variety:

-In id 18679, the spelling of 'vigour' is English, while most (perhaps all) other spelling in the game is American ('vigor'). While I'd prefer English spelling throughout, American spelling seems more realistic for a baseball game.

injury log · 08-01-2007, 10:20 AM

And one more:

In id 677 there is a misplaced apostrophe:

"each players' case"

should read:

"each player's case"

tysok · 08-01-2007, 10:30 AM

I fixed all of these.

The one under debate, "There are moments in a player's career that they will not soon forget" I left alone. It's worded kind of strange which is probably where the confusion is coming from. Putting it into something that one might say normally... "There's moments in a player's career that they won't soon forget" makes sense. Of course "There's" is grammatically incorrect, it should be "there are" or "there're" (which I don't think is a word, probably why it's changed to "there's"). Without the contractions it drags it out and makes it look and sound odd... but I don't want to change it to my line because: 1) I don't want you to post that "There's" isn't right, and 2) it does look like the kind of thing one might read in the paper (I stumble over the writer's trying to make his word quota in the papers all the time). It's also not really talking about only this player, but all players...

I think "back side" would be right. I don't think backside is right though. I changed that. Seems that "backside" would refer to the buttocks, "back side" would be simply the "back side" of his career... as opposed to the "front side".

Not sure about the shutout problem. A no hitter IS a shutout, so it is correct. And it doesn't say it's just a shutout... but that it was a shut out. Actually, reading your clip that doesn't work... it can't be a 4-1 shut out. Fixed that one too.

You can send them to me or post them here, whichever you want. If you send them directly there isn't fun debate over pluralism though.

injury log · 08-01-2007, 11:19 AM

Thanks for the quick reply. If I find further issues, I'll post them here- I'll enjoy the occasional discussion of the finer points of language usage- but I'll wait until I have a few to post. I don't really mind if there are minor grammatical mistakes, as long as the articles pass the 'newspaper test' (they read like what you might see in the paper), and I mentioned the contentious line more because of the misprinted apostrophe, though the writing is a bit awkward. It was indeed the '4-1 shutout' that was the issue with that message (technically, yes, a no-hitter should also be a shutout, but I've always disliked that rule in MLB, and I'm happy OOTP ignores it!). 'back side' seems vastly preferable to 'backside', which has always bothered me when I see it.

08-01-2007, 08:03 AM	#1
injury log Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 9,162	Minor news message text issues From the english.xml file: -In id 17519 ("There are moments in a player's career that they will not soon forget...") the apostrophe in "player's" doesn't print correctly (perhaps you've caught that already). In addition, grammatically, it should be 'that he will not soon forget', since the subject is singular ('a player'); -id 4966 and id 18763 both refer to a player 'on the backside of his career'. Surely 'backside' isn't the right word here? The only definition of 'backside' given by my dictionary is 'buttocks'. I'm guessing 'downside' or something similar is intended; -not a typo, but I've just seen news message 14872, which can occasionally incorrectly describe a no-hitter as a shutout (see image below). tysok- Do you make the corrections to the text files? if I find more of these, should I just send them to you directly by PM? Attached Images

08-01-2007, 08:14 AM	#3
Tony M Global Moderator Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Here Posts: 6,156 Blog Entries: 3	And the main definition of bewildered is 'to confuse or befuddle' so is it actually needed when befuddled is there? __________________ This signature is intentionally blank

08-01-2007, 10:30 AM	#6
tysok Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,925	I fixed all of these. The one under debate, "There are moments in a player's career that they will not soon forget" I left alone. It's worded kind of strange which is probably where the confusion is coming from. Putting it into something that one might say normally... "There's moments in a player's career that they won't soon forget" makes sense. Of course "There's" is grammatically incorrect, it should be "there are" or "there're" (which I don't think is a word, probably why it's changed to "there's"). Without the contractions it drags it out and makes it look and sound odd... but I don't want to change it to my line because: 1) I don't want you to post that "There's" isn't right, and 2) it does look like the kind of thing one might read in the paper (I stumble over the writer's trying to make his word quota in the papers all the time). It's also not really talking about only this player, but all players... I think "back side" would be right. I don't think backside is right though. I changed that. Seems that "backside" would refer to the buttocks, "back side" would be simply the "back side" of his career... as opposed to the "front side". Not sure about the shutout problem. A no hitter IS a shutout, so it is correct. And it doesn't say it's just a shutout... but that it was a shut out. Actually, reading your clip that doesn't work... it can't be a 4-1 shut out. Fixed that one too. You can send them to me or post them here, whichever you want. If you send them directly there isn't fun debate over pluralism though. __________________ I don't know about you, but as for me, the question has already been answered: Should we be here? Yes! Jack Buck, September 17, 2001 It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. I firmly believe that any man's finest hour... is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious. (Vince Lombardi) I don't measure a man's success by how high he climbs but how high he bounces when he hits bottom. (George S. Patton)

08-01-2007, 10:20 AM	#5
injury log Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 9,162	And one more: In id 677 there is a misplaced apostrophe: "each players' case" should read: "each player's case"

08-01-2007, 11:19 AM	#7
injury log Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 9,162	Thanks for the quick reply. If I find further issues, I'll post them here- I'll enjoy the occasional discussion of the finer points of language usage- but I'll wait until I have a few to post. I don't really mind if there are minor grammatical mistakes, as long as the articles pass the 'newspaper test' (they read like what you might see in the paper), and I mentioned the contentious line more because of the misprinted apostrophe, though the writing is a bit awkward. It was indeed the '4-1 shutout' that was the issue with that message (technically, yes, a no-hitter should also be a shutout, but I've always disliked that rule in MLB, and I'm happy OOTP ignores it!). 'back side' seems vastly preferable to 'backside', which has always bothered me when I see it.