1 |
On 08/20/2010 07:58 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
2 |
> On Friday 20 August 2010 14:20:35 Bill Longman wrote: |
3 |
>> On 08/19/2010 04:38 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
4 |
>>> On Thursday 19 August 2010 21:21:20 Kevin O'Gorman wrote: |
5 |
>>>> So I looked up "auto-hinter" in the flagedit(1) program. It says: |
6 |
>>>> auto-hinter: Local Flag: Use the unpatented auto-hinter instead |
7 |
>>>> of the (recommended) TrueType bytecode interpreter (media- |
8 |
>>>> libs/freetype) |
9 |
>>>> |
10 |
>>>> The placement of the "(recommended)" is just a bit ambiguous. |
11 |
>>> |
12 |
>>> No, it isn't. You may be being confused by the unnecessary |
13 |
>>> inclusion of brackets (parentheses if you're American); remove |
14 |
>>> them and you see that the TrueType byte-code interpreter is |
15 |
>>> recommended. Or, just consider the phrase "the recommended |
16 |
>>> TrueType bytecode interpreter", with or without brackets. I can't |
17 |
>>> see how that could be thought ambiguous. |
18 |
>> |
19 |
>> I have to agree it's ambiguous. You have to wonder why the |
20 |
>> parenthetical "recommended" is offset if it's just part of the |
21 |
>> sentence. If it were as you say, there would be no need to put them |
22 |
>> there. As it is written it sounds like it's making an aside claiming |
23 |
>> that one of them is recommended and, by its placement, it's hard to |
24 |
>> discern its antecedent. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> Its placement puts it squarely with the noun phrase following it. To |
27 |
> associate it with the preceding one instead would be perverse. (Just to |
28 |
> continue flogging a dead horse...) :-) |
29 |
|
30 |
Yet you yourself just put a parenthetical aside after its antecedent, |
31 |
not before it. |
32 |
|
33 |
Double flog. Double :-). |
34 |
|
35 |
> I agree though that the brackets are neither necessary nor helpful. |