That's a typo, right? CivWiki Khmer

[ShakaKhan]

On the Civilization Wiki page for Khmer, the civ ability Grand Baray entry states "Cities with an Aqueducts receive 1 Amenity and 1 Faith for every Population." There's no comma; it's not "Cities with an Aqueducts receive 1 Amenity,,,,, and cities with an aqueduct receive 1 Faith for every Population" This would seem to imply that having an aqueduct gives you one amenity for every population point, and since 1 amenity covers 2 population points, this would be completely broken; basically for every 2 population points you have you get two amenities, one of which covers the population cost of 2 population, and 1 amenity to go into the pool, and once a city reaches size 10, it is ecstatic, even without any other amenity source, and every 2 population after that gives you an extra amenity.

It's just one amenity per aqueduct per city, Right?

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Yeah, it's only +1 Amenity, not +1 Amenity from each Population. Was it @DogeEnricoDandolo or @Codeword Iroquois who was part of the Wiki, though?

 

[Buktu]

You just get 1 amenity.
I dont think a comma is correct in that sentence though (I'm not a native speaker so I might be wrong here). They just sum up what you get from the aquaduct:
- 1 Amenity
and
- 1 faith for every population.

 

[Banazir864]

A comma would be useful in that case to denote that the clause “for every population” does not modify “+1 Amenity.” I don’t know if it’s strictly grammatical, but when stating rules, it’s common and accepted to bend the rules of grammar if necessary for the sake of clarity. As worded, it implies that “for every population” applies to both bonuses, which would be ridiculous.

Or, you know, just word it as “...+1 Faith for every population, as well as +1 Amenity,” or even “...+1 Amenity and Faith equal to the city’s population.”

 

[Yzman]

Grammatically it is correct, however it is worded poorly. A comma does not help. The correct way to word the sentence to avoid any confusion would be ""Cities with an Aqueduct receive 1 Amenity and receive 1 Faith for every Population."

Basically you want to put another verb in the sentence so it is clear that is is 2 separate features and not a feature shared by two separate nouns. Is the aqueduct required for the faith? If not, it would be even better to further separate it like "Cities receive 1 Amenity if they have an Aqueduct and receive 1 Faith for every Population."

It is still a little ambiguous if the aqueduct is required in that sentence, but far better than before.

 

[Codeword Iroquois]

Yeah, it's only +1 Amenity, not +1 Amenity from each Population. Was it @DogeEnricoDandolo or @Codeword Iroquois who was part of the Wiki, though?

Technically, I am a part of the wiki, but haven't been on in a while.

 

[ShakaKhan]

DIdn't mean to start a grammatical semantics debate. Still, wouldn't it just be better to use two sentences. "Aqueducts provide +1 amenity. Cities with an aqueduct receive +1 faith per point of population."

 

[jasper]

I dont think a comma is going to help. Commas do not seperate things that way.

I agree that the wording needs to be changed. They might have even said "1 faith for every pop and 1 amenity".

 

[Aurelesk]

DIdn't mean to start a grammatical semantics debate. Still, wouldn't it just be better to use two sentences. "Aqueducts provide +1 amenity. Cities with an aqueduct receive +1 faith per point of population."

The original text says: "Cities with an Aqueduct receive +1 Amenity from entertainment and +1 Faith for every population." It is less misleading. Shorting it managed to make the ability more confusing.

I agree: they could reverse the wording if they wanted to short it: "Cities with Aqueducts receive 1 Faith per Population and 1 Amenity." or even shorter and reversed: "1 Faith per Population and 1 Amenity to Cities with Aqueducts".

 

[Pietato]

Grammatically it is correct, however it is worded poorly. A comma does not help. The correct way to word the sentence to avoid any confusion would be ""Cities with an Aqueduct receive 1 Amenity and receive 1 Faith for every Population."

Basically you want to put another verb in the sentence so it is clear that is is 2 separate features and not a feature shared by two separate nouns. Is the aqueduct required for the faith? If not, it would be even better to further separate it like "Cities receive 1 Amenity if they have an Aqueduct and receive 1 Faith for every Population."

It is still a little ambiguous if the aqueduct is required in that sentence, but far better than before.

The Oxford comma would very much help. Also the best way to word the sentence is 'Cities with an Aqueduct receive 1 Faith for every Population and 1 Amenity."

The original text says: "Cities with an Aqueduct receive +1 Amenity from entertainment and +1 Faith for every population." It is less misleading. Shorting it managed to make the ability more confusing.

I agree: they could reverse the wording if they wanted to short it: "Cities with Aqueducts receive 1 Faith per Population and 1 Amenity." or even shorter and reversed: "1 Faith per Population and 1 Amenity to Cities with Aqueducts".

This.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

The Oxford comma would very much help

Ugh, the Oxford comma is an abomination - if you need to use it you need to restructure your sentence instead

 

[Yzman]

The Oxford comma would very much help. Also the best way to word the sentence is 'Cities with an Aqueduct receive 1 Faith for every Population and 1 Amenity."


This.

Where exactly would an Oxford comma help to clarify this? An Oxford comma is used for serial lists of 3 or more. You don't have that here. It does nothing. I assume you are talking about writing "Cities with an Aqueducts receive 1 Amenity, and 1 Faith for every Population." You can't have an Oxford comma because you don't have any other commas. That is just grammatically incorrect and doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. Also, I wasn't sure if the aqueduct was required for the faith as I stated...since it is, your sentence structure makes sense.

Ugh, the Oxford comma is an abomination - if you need to use it you need to restructure your sentence instead

I disagree. It can be very useful.

The correct example of how an Oxford comma helps is a sentence like this



Notice how the Oxford comma requires there to already be a comma in the sentence ( after nice ladies) and is placed prior to "and" to separate the ideas.

 

[Aurelesk]

This is interesting. I do not think this rule applies to all languages. How often do the colon as a punctuation mark is used in the english language?

I don't really know all the rules in english, but if I wanted to convey the sense: "jfk and stalin are nice ladies", I would have written: "We invited the nice ladies: jfk and stalin".

 

[Pietato]

Where exactly would an Oxford comma help to clarify this? An Oxford comma is used for serial lists of 3 or more. You don't have that here. It does nothing. I assume you are talking about writing "Cities with an Aqueducts receive 1 Amenity, and 1 Faith for every Population." You can't have an Oxford comma because you don't have any other commas. That is just grammatically incorrect and doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. Also, I wasn't sure if the aqueduct was required for the faith as I stated...since it is, your sentence structure makes sense.


I disagree. It can be very useful.

The correct example of how an Oxford comma helps is a sentence like this



Notice how the Oxford comma requires there to already be a comma in the sentence ( after nice ladies) and is placed prior to "and" to separate the ideas.

Ah, you are correct. Oxford comma only refers to three or more things. But you are wrong about the comma not helping, as it would separate the two parts and provide a lot more clarity for the reader. Of course phrasing the statement better would be best.

 

[Mr. Salt]

Oops, this is my fault. It seems that someone made an effort to correct it, though.

 

[Yzman]

This is interesting. I do not think this rule applies to all languages. How often do the colon as a punctuation mark is used in the english language?

I don't really know all the rules in english, but if I wanted to convey the sense: "jfk and stalin are nice ladies", I would have written: "We invited the nice ladies: jfk and stalin".

That is perfectly acceptable usage of a colon however colons are rarely used like that in English from what I have seen.