Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pielorinho" data-source="post: 808119" data-attributes="member: 259">Re: Regarding #4As a grammar geek, I can back them up.&nbsp; The original rule contains a misplaced modifier, an ambiguous modifier, a close relative of the squinting modifier.&nbsp; They've got a compound predicate, as they rightly state; the &quot;as if...&quot; clause is an adverbial clause modifying the sentence's predicate.&nbsp; However, it can either modify the entire predicate (&quot;negates...and is capable...&quot;) or it can modify only the part of the predicate directly adjacent to the clause (&quot;is capable...&quot;).&nbsp; There is no indication in the original sentence which of these interpretations is correct.Tom, you clearly prefer the second interpretation, leaving the first part of the predicate unrestricted by the adverbial clause (i.e., allowing blessed weapons to negate damage reduction period, not negate damage reduction as if they're +1 weapons).&nbsp; This makes the spell much more powerful than the alternate reading, the one recommended by the FAQ, in which the entire predicate, not just the second part of the predicate, is modified by the adverbial clause.The FAQ's restatement of the sentence does not change its meaning:&nbsp; it clarifies its meaning.Daniel</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pielorinho, post: 808119, member: 259"] [b]Re: Regarding #4[/b] As a grammar geek, I can back them up. The original rule contains a misplaced modifier, an ambiguous modifier, a close relative of the squinting modifier. They've got a compound predicate, as they rightly state; the "as if..." clause is an adverbial clause modifying the sentence's predicate. However, it can either modify the entire predicate ("negates...and is capable...") or it can modify only the part of the predicate directly adjacent to the clause ("is capable..."). There is no indication in the original sentence which of these interpretations is correct. Tom, you clearly prefer the second interpretation, leaving the first part of the predicate unrestricted by the adverbial clause (i.e., allowing blessed weapons to negate damage reduction period, not negate damage reduction as if they're +1 weapons). This makes the spell much more powerful than the alternate reading, the one recommended by the FAQ, in which the entire predicate, not just the second part of the predicate, is modified by the adverbial clause. The FAQ's restatement of the sentence does not change its meaning: it clarifies its meaning. Daniel [/QUOTE]

Verification