What is rather scary is that Pamela explained that almost exactly how my g/f did after reading that post. What is it with the way English/Literary Majors explain English that causes us Creative Math Freaks to get the Heebie Jeebies? ::shiver:: Daemian "Insert witty quote here," Katt Jean. ================= IFGS SoCal President socal.ifgs.org ----- Original Message ----- From: <pddb at demesne.com> To: "Steven Brust" <skzb at dreamcafe.com> Cc: "David Silberstein" <davids at kithrup.com>; "Dragaera List" <dragaera at dragaera.info> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 9:02 AM Subject: Re: Great Weapons (was Possible spoilers for _Sethra Lavode_ (was Re: Dumas)) > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 01:26:06AM -0700, Steven Brust wrote: > > At 10:35 PM 8/18/2003 -0700, David Silberstein wrote: > > On the other hand, he also says: "The > > >two artifacts were, or are to be, created together --", which > > >ambiguifies the causality and sequence. > > > > Mark? Pamela? Can he say that? > > Sure, as long as he's being whimsical about it. > > If he's being serious, I'd think it should be "ambiguate." > > Though these opinions simply reflect the ways in which I've > happened to see the words used. In a context of literary > criticism, I'm much more accustomed to "ambiguate." But I'm > not really up on modern lit-crit. And in any case, I > guess you might say that the above context is what the > Serioli makes it -- whether that would be physics, history, > or weapons design I do not know. > > "Make ambiguous" is less open to various charges, but it creates > a sentence that is either very formal -- "makes ambiguous the > casuality and sequence" or else is perhaps less formal than > is desired -- "makes the casuality and sequence ambiguous." > > > -- > > Pamela Dean Dyer-Bennet (pddb at demesne.com) > "I will open my heart to a blank page > and interview the witnesses." John M. Ford, "Shared World"