Exponent 0 typo?

On page 37 there’s the exponent 0 rule. Is there a typo in there or am I mistaken?

“You may not receive help. FoRK into or spend artha on it.”

Should that instead read: “You may not receive help, FoRK into or spend artha on it.”?

Heh, amazing how one little change in punctuation changes the meaning of that sentence.

Nice catch. Amazing it wasn’t noticed earlier, since that’s also in the preview PDF that went out before pre-orders began.

I’m not 100% certain that it is a mistake. I’m trying to remember how revised handled it.

If it is a mistake it may simply be that the editor(s) didn’t pick it up due to the capitalisation of FoRK.

The second statement clearly cannot be the case, because it lacks the Oxford comma. Only mouth-breathing troglodytes forgo the Oxford comma.

Psst… Luke never uses the Oxford comma…

Actually, even Oxford’s PR department just stopped using the Oxford comma…

Also, the Oxford comma with an or-statement is pretty unnecessary. You don’t get that “his wives, Robert Redford and Kris Kristofferson” issue if it’s an “or” rather than an “and.” (Try it!)

I’m fairly sure Revised handled it as:

“You may not receive help, FoRK into or spend artha on it.” There ought to be an “it” after “FoRK into,” though, or an “or” after the comma. Also, Oxford commas are really only used nowadays if there’s a concern about possible ambiguity or confusion, as Devin said.

I’ve poked through the hub, spokes, and resources sections of my copy of BWR, but I didn’t find anything specifically relating to Exponent zero.

I assume that you are correct and the period is meant to be a comma.

It’s actually in the BW editorial style guide.

I think I heard Thor talk to Clyde about style guides in a podcast. Informative stuff!