I can sort of see that argument. It feels wrong, but I can't really say
that I know of any particular grammatical argument either way. Given that,
though, going back to the arabic case you mentioned earlier, wouldn't it
actually be this:
Not
" To be consistent, shouldn't we do "TrackTitle, Parts 1, 3, & 5" and
"TrackTitle, Parts 1–3, & 5"?"
But
To be consistent, shouldn't we do "TrackTitle, Parts 1, 3, & 5" and
"TrackTitle, Parts 1–3 & 5"?
ie, a serial comma, but no comma after the range?
(and re: consistency between the two, I think they actually are two distinct
cases, so there's no need for consistency between them.)
Brian
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Aaron Cooper <coope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The way I see it is "Parts {1} and {3 to 5}". I see two items being
> listed, not three or four. If I were to speak this title, I wouldn't
> say "Parts 1 3 to 5" I would say "Parts 1 and 3-to-5".
>
> -cooperaa
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Brian
> Schweitzer<brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Re #1, yes, that makes sense. Regarding #2, that doesn't flow as
> logically
> > for me - you're still dealing with 3+ items, not 2; doing "one & three –
> > five" seems to treat "three – five" as a singular item, not as the 2+
> plural
> > items it is describing. Try changing it to arabic for readability a
> moment
> > - does "Parts 1 & 3 – 5" really parse, to you, in a manner that is
> > consistent? It's using an ampersand between the first two elements of a
> 3
> > element list, which, to my knowledge, is never grammatically correct, in
> any
> > language.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Aaron Cooper <coope...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> A couple quick questions:
> >>
> >> 1. Why "TrackTitle, Parts 1, 3 & 5" and "TrackTitle, Parts 1–3, & 5"?
> >> To be consistent, shouldn't we do "TrackTitle, Parts 1, 3, & 5" and
> >> "TrackTitle, Parts 1–3, & 5"?
> >>
> >> 2. Why "TrackTitle, Parts One, Three – Five" instead of "TrackTitle,
> >> Parts One & Three – Five"?
> >>
> >> -cooperaa
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Brian
> >> Schweitzer<brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Part_Number_Style
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Kuno Woudt <k...@frob.nl> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:41:45AM -0400, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> >> >> > If you recall, I'd agreed to drop PartNumberStyle back to RFC
> status
> >> >> > due
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > debate on the RFV, but had delayed any further action while a few
> of
> >> >> > us
> >> >> > involved in the discussion were dealing with vacations and other
> >> >> > offline
> >> >> > issues. Now that enough time has passed, I think, for us all to be
> >> >> > back,
> >> >> > I'd like to bring this RFV back to the table. As the original RFC
> >> >> > was
> >> >> > kept
> >> >> > open, I don't think I need to re-RFC. To be fair, however, I will
> >> >> > give
> >> >> > a 7
> >> >> > day expiration on the RFV, rather than simply the normal 48 hours.
> >> >> > So,
> >> >> > if
> >> >> > it should happen that there are no continued objections, this one
> >> >> > would
> >> >> > pass
> >> >> > on Friday, early AM (EST), July 24.
> >> >>
> >> >> Waah, way too much text for an RFV :) Please include a link to a
> wiki
> >> >> page with the proposed changes, so I can just agree/disagree based on
> >> >> the
> >> >> the actual proposal and only look into the previous discussion if I
> >> >> disagree.
> >> >>
> >> >> -- kuno / warp.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> >> >> Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> >> >> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> >> > Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> >> > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
> >> >
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> >> Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> >> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> > Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
