Angel, hello!

Since the announcement of the BeastEon tumblr, I've been keeping an eye on it for updates and, so far, I am really excited about what I've seen. However, back when the Mogera Bestiary entry was posted, I was a bit shocked with the quality of the writing. I love the backstory and lore provided but the actual content was riddled with errors in terms of grammar and sentence structure.

I am not a tumblr user myself, so I have no idea whatsoever how the system works, but are posts able to be edited? And, if so, would you perhaps be open to taking proofreading editing suggestions? I would happily volunteer to go through these posts and fix any blatant mistakes I find.

Just something for you to consider ^^ Regardless of these trivial mistakes, I am extremely appreciative, as I am sure many prospective users of the site are who are also following along with BeastEon's developement, for the updates and information provided. I look forward to seeing the game grow and prosper!

  ------------------------------------------------------------

Personally edited version of the Mogera post (an example, I suppose, for if you'd be interested in having further posts edited in a similar fashion):

Rumor has it, that during the Age of Primordial Wonder, demigods bred Mogeras for subterranean works. A most curious being, on its upper body a Mogera has an elastic, constantly renewing exoskeleton, formed by the secretion of its skin. Its main burrowing (as well as hunting) instrument is its sharpened beak, while its snake-like tail is used exclusively for movement, along with its four developed limbs, each ending with a strong chela, that give the beast significant freedom in manipulating objects both big and small.

Mogeras dig deep, complex tunnels, which they cement with the same slimy secretion that forms their exoskeleton. Once on the walls, this slime hardens, turning into a tough, resilient layer of polymer – this makes Mogera tunnels almost impenetrable for outsiders. Some say, that somewhere deep within this labyrinth, strange secrets lie hidden, yet undiscovered even by Administratum. It is also speculated that these tunnels played a very important role in Ages past and, through them, one may access ancient underground cities, once glorious but now abandoned, which hold immense treasures. However, no one has ever provided any proof that they’d been there.

And the Mogera is one good reason for that.

Silent, solitary predators, Mogeras dwell in the haunted darkness of their underground labyrinth. They usually hunt on the surface, during the night. If successful, they always take their prey down into the tunnels, to swallow it whole and digest slowly, prolonging the process for months. But that is a good fate. Woe to those who dare to tread into the tunnels voluntarily. Mogeras are very territorial, and any intruder will face their wrath – even of their own kind. Their heavy beak and four crab-like claws leave the opponent with little chance of prevailing in such fight.

To tame a Mogera is a most difficult task, indeed - not only because of their aggressive nature and strong individualism, but also because of the very special conditions they require. Should a Keeper leave his Mogera untended and without proper supervision, he may soon find, in surprisingly little time at all, an underground network of tunnels that stretches for miles beneath his estate, and angry neighbors whose estates happen to be above it.

((Edit Note: Due to the initial use of Mogera being used as a proper noun, I continued to capitalize the name throughout the bestiary entry. I also left Keeper as a proper noun in the one place it was mentioned.))

 ------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to Europa (I have a bit too much time on my hands, even on vacation, so I went ahead and did the general Europa lore as well. This one had far less for me to do as well.):

There has been another world in Europa – one like nothing any now-living creature has ever seen. A paradise governed by god-like creatures, whose power knew no boundaries. But that world is no more. Epochs changed, memories blurred, and even myths now are but a bleak shade, unable to describe those prehistoric wonders. Only the ancient relics still hold a glimpse of glory lost and forgotten. Cyclopean ruins, towering above the ever-changing lands, keep secrets well-hidden. Deep within those ruins a pulse of mystical energy still beats, forcing Europa to abide by the Laws, written before the time of men, in the Age of Primordial Wonder.  

Countless eons have passed since that long-gone age and, by these Laws, Europa has reshaped itself countless times. Mountains became plains and rivers started to run backwards. Frozen tundras were overrun by thick woods, which in their turn were consumed by fire-breathing deserts. There’s nothing constant in Europa, and it seems it was never intended to be otherwise. Each time an eon draws near to its end, the great metamorphosis takes place, renewing the face of the world. Such are the ways of the Laws of Primordial Wonder which are beyond the comprehension of a mere mortal. Only the Administratum, the Eternal Order of Magi, direct descendants of the Primordials, hold keys to the ancient engines of Europa. Their understanding of the Laws is great and it positions them far above even the mightiest of the Beast Lords. But never was that power used to establish a reign over the people of Europa.

As the Administratum, enclosed and secretive, watches over Europa from the sky-high towers, the Warlock-Rovers roam the lands, always willing to buy and sell anything, including sacred knowledge and ancient secrets. Little is known about the Warlock-Rovers origin and motives. Some say, they are the Administratum counterpart, the order of same age and roots, which once parted ways with Magi. Others say that Warlock-Rovers are disguised outlanders, craving to possess all of Europa’s secrets. Whatever the truth might be, one thing is certain: Warlock-Rovers and Administratum are not enemies. Not allies either, but rather neutrals, showing each other respect but always avoiding meeting face-to-face.

In this ever-changing world, balance is the key to all things. An unmatched variety of creatures inhabits Europa, from those that are as tiny as a fingernail up to those as gigantic as a mountain. This complicated system hangs in fragile equilibrium, and any blow powerful and brutal enough may cause havoc and chaos. The third powerful faction of Europa – the Sentinels of the Wyld - keeps their guard on all the world’s ecosystems. Relentless and fierce in their duty, Sentinels spread thin throughout the land, leaving no spot off their watchful eye. It is no secret that they matured much later than the Administratum. Moreover, their disaffection to each other is no secret either, although it has yet to have grown into an open rivalry.

As eons pass, altering the landscapes, nothing in Europa stays the same. And this perpetual change is the most constant thing in the world. Living in these wondrous times, the beasts and their keepers stalk the realm, always to find something new, always on the brink. For they withstand the dawn of a new age – The Age of Discovery!

((Edit Note: What things are meant to be proper nouns still continues to be the most confusing aspect of this. I left 'keeper' how it was in the original text even though it was proper in the bestiary entry.))
((Edit Note 2: In the last paragraph, a sentence ends with "on the brink," which to me sounds like it was cut off and not finished as to what it was on the brink of. I considered adding "of a great discovery," however I thought this would have sounded a bit redundent due to the next sentence ending with "The Age of Discovery." So, if you do consider altering the text yourself, I would peronally recommend adding something to make the thought sound more complete.))

Hello!

I'm Vladimyr, author of the texts. So, first of all, I wanna say I'm sorry for all the errors and all the unpleasant emotions they've caused you. Believe me, being a text-perfectionist myself (of course, primary Ukrainian and Russian), I understand you way-to-well. And thus, right now feeling very ashamed.

I appreciate your help, I really do. And would be grateful even more if you would continue your work and find it possible to help me with some doubtful matters I face constantly while writing.

Speaking of which – about your Edit note 2.

always to find something new, always on the brink.

I do aware of the construction “on a brink of…”, but I’ve also read the phrase “Tittering on the brink, facing the Abyss”, which I used as an example for my sentence. But, if you say, that in my case it’s a missuse – would it be correct to change it for “allways on the edge”?

Hmm.

I typically avoid correcting people's grammar online, but since Sylviianel's now become an official component of the site as a result of this post, I suppose I may as well say what's on my mind.

I think that the passage about mogeras could have been better cleaned up by rewording many phrases rather than simply adding a few commas or extra words here and there. This sentence in particular seems too long, especially considering all the separate clauses marked off by commas: 

Its main burrowing (as well as hunting) instrument is its sharpened beak, while its snake-like tail is used exclusively for movement, along with its four developed limbs, each ending with a strong chela, that give the beast significant freedom in manipulating objects both big and small.

Additionally, this sentence is inconsistent--the subject ("a Mogera") is singular, but is referred to later in the sentence as plural ("their aggressive nature", "conditions they require"): 

To tame a Mogera is a most difficult task, indeed - not only because of their aggressive nature and strong individualism, but also because of the very special conditions they require. 

I'm no copy editor myself, but I took the liberty to rewrite this passage in a way that I feel flows better as a comparison. Of course, if I was an editor, I'd want to discuss with the author how much they wanted me to revise, while still keeping the original style intact as much as possible.

---

Rumor has it that during the Age of Primordial Wonder, demigods bred mogeras for subterranean works. A most curious being, the mogera has an elastic, constantly-renewing exoskeleton on its upper body, formed by the secretion of its skin. Its main burrowing (as well as hunting) instrument is its sharpened beak, while its snake-like tail is used exclusively for movement. Four developed limbs, each ending with strong chela, give the beast significant freedom in manipulating objects big and small.

Mogeras dig deep, complex tunnels, which they cement with the same slimy secretion that forms their exoskeletons. Once on the walls, the slime hardens into a tough, resilient layer of polymer that makes the tunnels almost impenetrable for outsiders. Some say that somewhere deep within this labyrinth, strange secrets lie hidden, yet undiscovered even by the Administratum. It is also speculated that these tunnels played a very important role in Ages past, and that through them, one may access ancient underground cities, once glorious, but now abandoned--and holding immense treasures. However, no one has ever proven that such cities existed.

And the mogera is one good reason for that.

Silent, solitary predators, mogeras dwell in the haunted darkness of their underground labyrinth, only coming to the surface at night to hunt. Successfully captured prey is always taken down into the tunnels to be swallowed whole and digested slowly over several months. But that is a good fate. Woe to those who dare to tread into the tunnels voluntarily; mogeras are very territorial, and any intruder will face their wrath--even those of their own kind. The mogera's heavy beak and four crab-like claws leave an opponent little chance to prevail in such a fight.

To tame a mogera is a difficult task indeed, not only because of its aggressive nature and strong individualism, but also because of the very special conditions it requires. Should a Keeper leave his mogera untended and without proper supervision, it may be surprisingly soon that he finds an underground network beneath his estate, stretching for miles. And angered neighbors, whose estates also happen to be above it.

---

Anyhow, the whole point of this post is...I think having a native English-speaking editor might be a good idea. But as a native English-speaker, I'm still finding mistakes in the texts revised by Sylviianel.

Hello!

I see your point. And as a pro-writer I might just say that any text can be edited - even one that was already edited or even considered to be classics. A writing style is a very personal matter and you’re unlikely to find a person with one that matches yours perfectly. Of course, that is a lame excuse for language problems of a foreigner, and you shouldn’t by any means read it as: “I’m so perfect , you just don’t see it”.

Thing is, that if you are looking for a perfect text – there are none. I had a good story on that matter, by the way. Some years ago a short novel of mine was accepted by a publisher to be included in some anthology. So, that novel was sent to an text editor. Soon after my publishing editor resend me the text, saying: “All is well, just a few minor suggestions you might consider”. I’ve opened it and saw document, where almost half of the text was red of corrections. Being quite shocked, I’ve asked: “That is what you call “minor”?” And chief editor replied: “Yep, minor they are. You can rejected all of them if you like because there are none fatal ones –it just your vision against editors”.

I do understand that English is in many ways much more strict than most of the languages I happen to learn. But in any case “text polishing” is the thing you can never actually finish – every time you return to your old writings you find something to edit or correct.

Sumatra_Echo,

When making revisions, I am attempting to keep the original text as unchanged as possible, as I do not wish to alter the original tone or make edits that would change the desired meaning of the text. My main goal in this is to correct the issues pertaining to the text's flow. Jagged wording and odd punctuation, or lack of punctuation, can throw that off.

On the note of you finding that one sentence to be particularly long... I personally see no fault in such a structure as I love longer sentences compared to several short chunks. As long as the punctuation, namely the commas, help to break up the wall of text and provide necessary pauses in the reading, it's fine (in my opinion).

As for the second note, the inconsistency of the one sentence, I made the assumption from the original text that the ' - ' was a sort of break seperating the singular and plural usage. The first half of the sentence refers to a singular Mogera while the second refers to Mogeras as a generalized group entity, thus the plural. However in your edited version I would argue against the way you went about altering that sentence; a semicolon, like I just used, would have been a more appropriate break than a comma due to the sentence addressing two different, but related, points.

--------------------------------------------------

MaXinatoR,

Hello!

You have done a wonderful job with the texts so far! While there are some errors here and there, they are easily forgivable when addressing a language barrier. Even people with English as their first and only language are prone to some rather gravous mistakes (which is rather unfortunate for so-called "Grammar Nazis" such as myself). I'll do my best to give helpful pointers whenever I can so this can be more of a learning experience for you! Feel free to ask any questions you may have at any time.

Now to address the matter of your response to my note.

“Tittering on the brink, facing the Abyss”

As I see this, the brink in this case is a literal ledge, although the expression as a whole could also be viewed as metaphorical based on the context.

Your suggested change to "always on the edge" portrays the same idea as the original "always on the brink," but it does not address the issue I personally had with it, which was that it sounded like an incomplete thought at the end of that sentence. However I do acknowledge that this could very well be the way I am reading it since I do not see anything technically wrong with it (which was why I simply made a note and did not change the text in my edit).

To me, an editor's job is not just correcting grammar mistakes, but also making the meaning of the text as clear as possible--which sometimes means adjusting the phrasing, though of course the author is free to reject such adjustments if they like. If that's not what was wanted in this situation, then I'll respect that.

Specifically to Sylviianel:

The issue with the first sentence is that it's confusing. Does "along with its four developed limbs" mean that the limbs are burrowing instruments like the beak, or exclusively used for movement like the tail? It's not clear which meaning is intended. 

As to your response on the second sentence, I've never seen a dash used in this way. Could you show me where you found a precedent for this choice? The latter part of the sentence consists of two prepositional phrases ("because of their aggressive nature and strong individualism" and "because of the very special conditions they require"), meaning they rely on the subject and verb, and therefore take the same number (singular or plural). I don't understand your point about the semicolon; neither of us used a semicolon in this sentence, and it wouldn't work anyway because the part after the dash can't work as a stand-alone sentence.

((*flips a table* I was so close to being done with my response when my browser suddenly went back to the previous tab, losing the text I had typed up.))

In some of the other texts I am working on going through for the project, I have replaced some small sections and added in bits of my own to try to help with that, but as mentioned I'd rather not make too many edits to the original content. Absolute perfection in a technical sense in the writing would take away from the established tone, and some commonly accepted English dialects do not follow the established rules of grammar exactly due to it sounding awkward in everyday conversation. If the sentence flows well, the text sounds good, and it offers enough information and detail, it should be fine.

---------------------------------------

Its main burrowing (as well as hunting) instrument is its sharpened beak, while its snake-like tail is used exclusively for movement, along with its four developed limbs, each ending with a strong chela, that give the beast significant freedom in manipulating objects both big and small.

I'll do my best to break this up into small, simple segments to explain the meaning, as per my understanding of the text, to see if knowing the sentence's intention makes it easier to understand how the sentence is structured with the information. It isn't meant to replace the original text in any way, just explain it.

A Mogera's sharpened beak is its main tool for hunting and burrowing. In terms of the creature's mobility, both the snake-like tail and four developed limbs are used. Unlike this tail, which is used exclusively for movement, these limbs end with a strong chela that allow the beast to easily manipulate objects in its surroundings.

---------------------------------------

To be honest? It was primarily an assumption made when trying to keep in mind the sentence's intent. Something I've noticed is that MaXinatoR uses dashes in places I personally wouldn't include them, and when applicable I do my best to replace them with commas or include them in the main sentence, but this case was peculiar. A comma alone doesn't offer the proper break between the segments but, as you pointed out, a semicolan, which, to me, sounds closer to what should be correct, does not exactly fit either. To better fit a technical standpoint, the sentence could be completely rewritten, but it doesn't detract from the text in its current state (in my opinion) as it is still coherant.

About the dashes. They are the example of language barrier I’ve talked about. Thing is, that the punctuation rules (as far as I know) in Eastern Slavic languages are much more complex, then in English. Dash, for example is commonly used in certain complex sentences as a divider, allowing to build a certain hierarchy in sentence parts . While in English I’m trying to avoid using it ‘cause I’m not sure how to do it properly, in Ukrainian and Russian it is still one of my favorite instruments, allowing to perform a very subtle play with a sentence meaning  and inner logic. So, from time to time, I just cannot help myself, and use it mechanically. ))))

Same goes to punctuation as a whole – while in orthography I’m trying to keep English rules in mind, with comas, colons, ect. I’m often instinctively using my native rules. The reason for that is quite flat – in Ukraine, while learning English (usually) since first grade, we start learning punctuation only (and not always) in University.

Sylviianel

My takeaway from this: you're correcting grammar mistakes if they seem to be those made by a non-native English speaker, but if they seem similar to those commonly made by native Engish speakers and therefore part of a "dialect", then you leave them. Is that correct? I'm not sure I understand what your overall goal is. In your first post you mentioned wanting to fix grammar mistakes, but now you're saying that so long as "the sentence flows well" and "the text sounds good", the accuracy of the grammar itself is immaterial.

Your interpretation of the text may be consistent with the author's intentions, but it is in no way clear given the sentence's structure. The fact that you needed to explain it to me is proof of that.

I'm not sure why you're replacing the dashes with commas to begin with, since you just said that you were editing as little as possible to avoid taking away from the established tone, and all of the dashes in the mogera bestiary text are used properly. (Unless the dash in this particular sentence is an intentional break between singular and plural usage, as you say.) Whether or not the dash is replaced by a comma, the latter part of the sentence is still inconsistent with the first.

As to coherency--the text was already intelligible before you started correcting it, even with its mistakes. So again, I don't understand your reasoning behind when or when not to correct grammatical errors.

MaXinatoR

As far as I can tell, your use of dashes is just fine (although technically it should be typed as "--", not " - "). For reference, I'm looking at this page that gives a short description of its usage, although many style guides probably have more strict guidelines.

Sumatra_Echo,

It seems my attempts to explain myself are jumbling up my intentions even more. Mentioning the dialects was simply an example that even commonly accepted practices in English may not necessarily be 'correct' in terms of standard English.

I've had similar discussions to this in the past with a friend of mine who, admittedly, is akin to a robot in debates (not an insult, her objectivity is astounding). In one such conversation, we realized just how differently our teachers taught us to write research papers. Things that I was taught to do, she was told never to do, and so on. Our language is not consistent from one region of the country to the next, so part of the problem we may be having concerning minor errors could potentially be a result of what we've been taught.

Dashes and I personally do not get along. It could be due to my teachers never explaining them properly back when I was learning to write,  or it could simply be my own writing style that rejects them, but whatever the reason, I have a hard time accepting them outside of cases such as "day-to-day."

In the end, even if I overlook certain mistakes, the more blatant ones that throw off the writing are being taken care of, which will hopefully help some readers.

A dialect, while it may not be entirely consistent with what is considered "standard English", still follows its own rules of vocabulary and grammar. Mistakes made due to simply not being a native English speaker are a different matter entirely. And I'm still failing to understand why you choose to correct some grammar errors and not others. How are you differentiating between what you see as "the established tone" and simple error?

Of the two mistakes I pointed out in your revised text, one might be able to argue that the first was only a matter of preference. But the second is still a mistake. I don't know why your education would lead you to believe a sentence can switch from singular to plural halfway through.

So then, you are editing the text in accordance with your own writing style, and not, as you claimed earlier, only where necessary to make the text "sound good". Even if you weren't certain about where it was appropriate to use a dash, you could have looked it up. 

I'd assumed you were trying to fix as many mistakes as possible, not only those you regarded as "most blatant". The fact that you've also edited parts of the text where there were no mistakes would support that.

Wait is this just a forum for talking about grammar? If so, I noticed one mistake in the second post on this forum. The author posted "to" where it should have been "too" Sorry if I'm nitpicking.