I don't read out loud nor was I listening to someone reading it; I was seeing it and parsing it using a path in my brain that has nothing to do with the audio mode.
That the words are homophones mean nothing. Part of speech is everything.
Even so, the modified statement still doesn't make sense. At the very least it is a comma splice: two independent clauses separated with a bare comma. Reading "out loud" where the comma might be a full stop, it still doesn't flow since there is no clear antecedent for "it".
In short, it was a not a near miss with a slight typographical correction to be made. It just didn't make sense as written. I would rewrite the sentence. | [reply] |
In short, it was a not a near miss with a slight typographical correction to be made.
Yes, changing ',' to ';' and inserting a ' is anything but slight typographical correction (no, I didn't write it, just FYI). (:
it still doesn't flow since there is no clear antecedent for "it".
Where could that antecedent be in "...your post; it's..."? Boy, that is hard to find! Granted, there are other possible choices that work as well or better, but that one works just fine. :)
In any case, I've corrected the mistake of it only being on the form for replies (well, there are a couple of less-used forms that still lack it) and made it much clearer, IMHO:
Use: <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and: <code> code here </code>
to format your post; it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":
And, just in case anybody wonders, no, we won't make that "PerlMonks-approved HTML" a link to Perl Monks Approved HTML tags, despite that seeming an obvious improvement. Unfortunately, doing so would make Tab no longer take one from the "title" field to the "body text" area (in both browsers).
But such a link should be added below the text area. Such used to be included there but somebody complained (IIRC) about those hints saying "Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place" which was deemed inappropriate except when posting a root node. I (now) disagree, in part because we have no shortage of people posting replies that should be root nodes.
So I'll probably add (all of) those hints back for replies eventually if nobody beats me to it.
I would rewrite the sentence.
Not s/would/did/? Well, I won't go searching through the pedantry of this thread looking for it, then. If you actually have a clearer rendition of those instructions to offer, then please point such out or include such in a reply to this node. Thanks in advance.
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
For the antecedent I'm looking at the previous subject, not the last word in the predicate. Subject is missing (implied "you"). Meat the the sentence is what to use. "it" is "these rule?"?
My editors were always after me to clarify pronouns such as "it" when it seemed obvious to me when I wrote it. But the changes did not make the prose worse, and usually was indeed clearer.
How about "…your post. See below for “Perl Monks Approved HTML”."
That is, use a full stop, and tell them to look below (since the original problem is that some people didn't), and spell it exactly the same as the reference below. I understand not wanting a href, but you can still mention it in prose the old-fashioned way.
| [reply] |