Quick Fire Questions (A Place to Ask and Answer)

[Hex]

Yes, because they are like the powers of the Roamers (plural -- the Roamers as a group have these powers(*)). So you're correct


(*) unless you mean one Roamer, in which case the apostrophe should be before the s

 

[David B]

sorry about this, I'm in the middle of a line edit, so lots of punctuation queries. I have this:


My powers; I’m adopted, I don’t where they come from, but they’re very like the Roamers’




Should Roamers have a possessive apostrophe (getting there, Chrispy but still a work in progress )?

No apostrophe but you need:

1. a full stop at the end
2. 'Know' between don't and when
3. To sort out the front of the sentence i.e:
I'm adopted. I don't know where my powers....

 

[Grimbear]

I think it should, but if you don't like the effect there could be other ways of getting around it by restructuring the sentence:

My powers; I’m adopted, I don’t where they come from, but they’re very like the Roamers’

Could be:

My powers; I'm adopted, I don't know where they come from, but they're like those of the Roamers.

My powers are like Roamer powers, but I don't know where they came from - I'm adopted.

The Roamers have similar powers I think, but I don't know where mine came from as I was adopted.


Hope that helps?

 

[David Evil Overlord]

Springs, by mentioning adoption, it sounds like your protagonist does know where his/her powers come from i.e. they are inherited through the alchemy of genetics.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

thanks Hex, DB. Hex, that was my take on it, that the powers belonged to the Roamer race, if you like.

DB, the sentence runs on, I missed the know (how do our eyes do that in our own work and not someone elses?) I'm not sure about the last, it's dialogue and I think the way I have it fits his venacular better but I'll stew on it.

I'll leave the apostrophe there for now, and see if I get a concensus. sounds like it should be.

oh and two more. I'm not so worried about the sentence construction ie how it sounds, because it fits in with a person's voice.

And the adoption; he doesn't know, his physical characteristics are very different from the Roamers, so he has pretty well dismissed being one of them - plus it goes against the traditions of the Roamers to give a baby up for adoption. and it's a plot line for book 2 even more importantly....

 

[David B]

thanks Hex, DB. Hex, that was my take on it, that the powers belonged to the Roamer race, if you like.

DB, the sentence runs on, I missed the know (how do our eyes do that in our own work and not someone elses?) I'm not sure about the last, it's dialogue and I think the way I have it fits his venacular better but I'll stew on it.

I'll leave the apostrophe there for now, and see if I get a concensus. sounds like it should be.

oh and two more. I'm not so worried about the sentence construction ie how it sounds, because it fits in with a person's voice.

And the adoption; he doesn't know, his physical characteristics are very different from the Roamers, so he has pretty well dismissed being one of them - plus it goes against the traditions of the Roamers to give a baby up for adoption. and it's a plot line for book 2 even more importantly....

No, on second reading Hex is right on the apostrophe.

 

[David Evil Overlord]

Okay, so Roamer powers are inherited, but he doesn't look like a Roamer, and he's adopted when Roamers are not. Right, we're on the same page now. Just reading that sentence without any other background threw me for a moment.

 

[Ursa major]

And the adoption; he doesn't know, his physical characteristics are very different from the Roamers, so he has pretty well dismissed being one of them - plus it goes against the traditions of the Roamers to give a baby up for adoption.

It's a personal thing, but in ignorance of the context of your text, and assuming you want a bigger pause than a comma would deliver, I'd start the sentence with: 'As for the adoption...'


The word, so, indicates a conclusion being made, but this isn't the result of being ignorant, which is what you have here is you remove the text between the commas**:

He doesn't know, so he has pretty well dismissed being one of them

That doesn't make sense. The conclusion results from the man's/boy's physical characteristics being unlike that of the Roamers:

His physical characteristics are very different from the Roamers', so he has pretty well dismissed being one of them.

So my suggestion for the text would be:

As for the adoption... he doesn't know. His physical characteristics are very different from the Roamers', so he has pretty well dismissed being one of them. Plus it goes against the traditions of the Roamers to give a baby up for adoption.

(By the way, I've become so sensitised to the possible presence of comma splicing - in other people's text - that I thought you'd included one in your quote.)



** - I was taught that one way of determining whether commas were appropriate was to see what a sentence looked like with the text between a pair*** of them removed.

*** - Pair being the operative word: commas used for other things - such as lists - are ignored for this sort of exercise.

 

[David Evil Overlord]

But I thought (and so does my dictionary) that shrugging used both shoulders. So aren't we getting into the territory of the one-handed clap?

According to Terry Pratchett, the sound of one hand clapping is the sound made by one hand of a holy man slapping the face of a rather annoying acolyte.

 

[Mouse]

Questions!

1. If a driver knocked down and killed a child, how long would they get in jail?

2. Could a car accident cause a heavily pregnant woman to lose the baby? (I'm thinking this is a stupid question and the answer's yes, but you never know.)

Morbid questions. Sorry about that.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Can't help with one but two is I'm pretty sure true - dependent on the nature of the injury and I would guess how far on the pregnancy is.

 

[The Judge]

1. If a driver knocked down and killed a child, how long would they get in jail?

He/she might not go to jail - it depends on how culpable he/she is. If a child runs out in front of you and you do everything right but just can't stop in time, then it's an accident and no prosecution. If your attention is distracted for a moment eg by your own crying baby, then it would probably be only careless driving, for which the norm is a fine -- though checking I see there might be an offence of causing death by careless driving for which the max is 5 years. (It's confusing -- I can see the Act but can't work out if it's in force yet.) Then there's reckless driving (eg using the laptop while driving) which gets higher sentences and repeat offenders do, too. NB Killing a child raises emotions, but the judge has to sentence for the offence, not for its consequences.

Worst case, likely 3 or 4 years I think, though how much is actually served is another matter, but if this is for the book, then you'd need to do a good bit more research. Check out a few local papers. Just recently there was a new road deaths map which came out -- you can log in and find when and where accidents happened, how many killed etc. Using that you could research in local papers to find out the results of any court proceedings.


EDIT: here's the map I was talking about http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15975720

PS If you're going to write a court scene, for goodness sake go to a court and watch them in action -- don't rely on what you see on TV which is nonsense half the time (except for that ludicrous Eternal Law which was nonsense all the time...)

 

[Mouse]

if this is for the book, then you'd need to do a good bit more research.

Don't worry, I've not run anybody over.

Thanks TJ, Springs.

I'm thinking that it'd be somebody going to jail instead of somebody else - they said they were driving when they weren't, sort of thing.

Although my problem is that I tend to run over people a lot in my stories. A lot. So not keen on doing it again, really.

Which leads me to the pregnancy thing. It'd be an accident where the driver (not the mum) was fine, but the lady passenger lost the baby.

edit: no court scenes, don't worry. It's for a flashback, so any court scenes would've happened off page.

 

[Hex]

Mouse -- when someone's pregnant they're advised to wear the seat belt under the bump, which can be fairly uncomfortable (but -- according to babycentre -- there are risks to positioning the lap belt across your bump). A seat belt positioned across your bump could, in an accident, damage the placenta (which you need) or -- according to the more dramatic babyworld -- "cause the placenta to tear away from the uterus" (which is bad).

In fact, seat belts when you're pregnant can be pretty uncomfortable, and people don't always wear them -- which is clearly not a brilliant plan.

There are things you can buy to redirect force/ change the way the belt works etc. For example, this new kind of seat belt. There are claims (which I don't know much about) that with traditional seat belts the diagonal belt crossing the body can be dangerous to the foetus in an accident. You can't win, really, except by buying a fancy new seat belt...

So: yes, a car crash could result in the death of an unborn baby. I would imagine that it would get more dangerous when there was a visible bump (ie: from maybe 18 weeks) and, if it's placenta damage, before the baby is 'viable' outside the womb (I'm guessing now -- I don't know how fast damage to the placenta would affect the baby). I'd guess riskiest times might be 18 to 30 weeks. I don't know if any of that's relevant...

 

[Mouse]

Thanks Hex. I didn't know that about the seatbelt, that's interesting. So if the passenger was wearing a seatbelt across her bump and the car had a clang, then it's likely that only the baby would be hurt?

TJ, that map's really interesting, thanks. Not surprising where the accidents are around my area. I'm very often late for work because of all the accidents on that particular road.

 

[The Judge]

I'm thinking that it'd be somebody going to jail instead of somebody else - they said they were driving when they weren't, sort of thing.

What you're looking at there is perverting the course of justice for which the maximum is life (for both parties, ie the one who drove and the one who claimed to be driving). So it's ripe for blackmail attempts!

 

[Mouse]

What you're looking at there is perverting the course of justice for which the maximum is life (for both parties, ie the one who drove and the one who claimed to be driving). So it's ripe for blackmail attempts!

Aaah! No, see that's perfect.

Now I don't know what to do.

 

[David Evil Overlord]

I know of one case where the accident caused a pregnant woman to lose her baby. However, the law in our state at that time did not recognise a fetus as alive until birth, so the driver responsible only got a fine for careless driving or something.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think Hex is probably right about the time scale; the baby is pretty well protected in the early stages. In trtms of the placenta it depends how badly it was damaged but it can cause massive bleeding so the mother's in danger too if it's damaged.

 

[Mouse]

Ok so... say there were three people in a car. Two men and a pregnant woman. They had an accident and the woman lost the baby. The men lie about who is driving.

Is that all still perverting the course of justice? What would happen there? What would the 'driver' get? A fine?