Typo in Machinist PvP ability, Bioblaster

[Rongway]

Just as you can deal someone five cards, you can deal someone some quantity of damage. It's not ungrammatical. Is there a similar tooltip we can reference for consistency?

[Shurrikhan]

Just as you can deal someone five cards, you can deal someone some quantity of damage. It's not ungrammatical. Is there a similar tooltip we can reference for consistency?

Generally, this is only applicable when the verb is of grammatically identical form to, and replaceable with, the verb "to give" (e.g. "give someone five cards"). Just as historically accusative verbs will not allow for this historically dative construction ("take someone five cards") except as a prepositional phrase ("take someone five hands into debt"), it doesn't work here except through implicit substitution.

"Deal" (e.g. damage) is generally an monotransitive verb whereas "give", to make any normal sense, is (at least implicitly) ditransitive, and what would typically be called the "indirect object" here is not of the same meaning class as in "to give" (i.e. receiver>beneficiary). Has the stretch been made before? Certainly. But outside of cases where the verb is simply a shade of another that goes fit the grammatical class, "damage dealt target" is not inherently "proper" grammar. Rather, verb-shading is an accepted (though not broadly or prevalently) feature of the language's evolution.

[Rongway]

"damage dealt target" is not inherently "proper" grammar.

This is still not the construct we're talking about.

We're talking about "damage you deal target", not "damage dealt target by you". The latter is missing a "to"; the former is not.

Sentences like "The orc's attack deals John five damage" are commonly heard in a tabletop gaming session. So again, regarding the quote about which this discussion began: it's not a problem of grammar. Do we have any tooltips that are worded exactly "damage you deal to target" that we can cite to show that this is a problem of consistency?

[Raldo]

Personally, I'm fine with the wording either way. I'm just here to drop in the facts requested.

Do we have any tooltips that are worded exactly "damage you deal to target" that we can cite to show that this is a problem of consistency?

Similar to Bioblaster (PvP):

MNK - Demolish (PvP)
Combo Bonus: Increases damage you deal target by 20%

DRG - Chaos Thrust (PvP)
Combo Bonus: Increases damage you deal target by 20%

NIN - Shadow Fang (PvP)
Additional Effect: Increases damage you deal target by 20%

SAM - Yukikaze (PvP)
Combo Bonus: Increases damage you deal target by 20%


Dissimilar to Bioblaster (PvP):

Caster Additional Action - Phantom Dart (PvP)
Additional Effect: Increases damage you deal to target by 10%



Consistency favors Bioblaster's current wording, though it is odd that there is a single example that includes "to". I was surprised when I found it.


Disclaimer: This information was pulled from the job action list on the lodestone website. I haven't personally checked to see if the in-game strings match.

[Shurrikhan]

We're talking about "damage you deal target", not "damage dealt target by you". The latter is missing a "to"; the former is not.

They're identical. I chose that particular wording because it can double as a nominalization and thus didn't feel awkward there, but by the same sense that you can shade "deal" as "give", "damage dealt target by you" is just as 'grammatical' (though only through use of the above construct) as "damage you deal target".

I don't have any horse in this race. It just seems odd to call someone out for having a mistaken notion of grammar when their understanding of the words in question is actually fine; there merely exists a special, vaguely "accepted" (not "prescriptive") case by which it's possible to omit the preposition despite the word itself being monotransitive (because you're treating it as an entirely different word).