| 1 |
On Friday 20 August 2010 14:20:35 Bill Longman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/19/2010 04:38 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thursday 19 August 2010 21:21:20 Kevin O'Gorman wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> So I looked up "auto-hinter" in the flagedit(1) program. It says: |
| 5 |
> >> auto-hinter: Local Flag: Use the unpatented auto-hinter instead |
| 6 |
> >> of the (recommended) TrueType bytecode interpreter (media- |
| 7 |
> >> libs/freetype) |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> >> The placement of the "(recommended)" is just a bit ambiguous. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > No, it isn't. You may be being confused by the unnecessary |
| 12 |
> > inclusion of brackets (parentheses if you're American); remove |
| 13 |
> > them and you see that the TrueType byte-code interpreter is |
| 14 |
> > recommended. Or, just consider the phrase "the recommended |
| 15 |
> > TrueType bytecode interpreter", with or without brackets. I can't |
| 16 |
> > see how that could be thought ambiguous. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I have to agree it's ambiguous. You have to wonder why the |
| 19 |
> parenthetical "recommended" is offset if it's just part of the |
| 20 |
> sentence. If it were as you say, there would be no need to put them |
| 21 |
> there. As it is written it sounds like it's making an aside claiming |
| 22 |
> that one of them is recommended and, by its placement, it's hard to |
| 23 |
> discern its antecedent. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Its placement puts it squarely with the noun phrase following it. To |
| 26 |
associate it with the preceding one instead would be perverse. (Just to |
| 27 |
continue flogging a dead horse...) :-) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I agree though that the brackets are neither necessary nor helpful. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Rgds |
| 33 |
Peter. Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23. |
Archives