|
Post by joe101 on Jul 25, 2009 16:39:38 GMT
I noticed this late last night and did not see anything in the errata about it. The first paragraph in Section 220 reads: The cauldron smashes down into the centre of the hall and explodes with devastating effect, spewing its deadly contents in all directions. A tidal wave of acid engulfs the tables, submerging and burning everything not made of stone, porcelain or glass. The pitiful screams of the druids rise above the thunderous din as they and their deadly work are consumed by a merciless sea of corrosive.
The last sentence ends with corrosive. Should it not read "consumed by a merciless sea of corrosive acid"?
|
|
|
Post by Doomy on Jul 25, 2009 17:22:32 GMT
"Corrosive" can also be a noun, meaning any substance capable of irreparably harming another substance, usually living tissue. on contact.
|
|
|
Post by outspaced on Jul 25, 2009 20:50:29 GMT
As Doomy says, 'corrosive' can also be a noun. It's written that way in the original text, almost certainly to avoid repetition as the word 'acid' is used the the sentence preceding the one ending in "...corrosive." Adding "acid" on to the end of it would sound repetitive. Thanks for pointing this out to us, though. If you spot any others, we're always interested.
|
|
|
Post by joe101 on Jul 26, 2009 2:31:46 GMT
I know corrosive can be used as a noun, but that sentence seems to just end too abruptly. It's one of those things that made me wonder if it was something that slipped by in the original. After reading the paragraph over and over several times it just seemed to me that "acid" should of been the word to end the sentence. If not"acid" perhaps something with simular meaning...?
|
|