Typo in Machinist PvP ability, Bioblaster

[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).