In a message dated 6/24/2002 5:40:59 PM Mountain Daylight Time, dd-b at dd-b.net writes: > And I can't quite find the words to argue the other way. It *nearly* > makes sense with "for", but the rest of the excerpt doesn't support > it to my eye. It's not a typo. I think it makes sense. The first part, "Yet you survived" is pretty self-explanatory (though I don't know to whom/what "you" is referring), followed by the phrase "for far away" meaning that "you" is far away from what is spoken of in the rest of the phrases - the Tiassa, Yendi, and Lavode. One wonders why the fourth, the Lyorn, didn't get a mention right here in this passage. To me, "for far away" implies one (or both) of the following: 1. The reason for "you's" survival is because of the Tiassa, Yendi, and Lavode. 2. The reason for you's" survival is because the Tiassa, Yendi, and Lavode are far away. Does that make any sense? Stacy