EQOTD [Answered]
-
As a non-native English speaker I am proof reading a document from a colleague. I could use a bit of advice from some fellow Loungers: Assume a model that can be described by the following paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. I do not think that is grammatically correct. Assume that we have a model that can be described by the following paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. May be proper English, but unbearable to read when repeated in several paragraphs. So I came up with: We have a model with the paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. Which did not draw cheers from the crowd. The use of "we" was frowned upon. I have to admit it does feel a tad unscientific. I dunno what to do. Perhaps: There is a model with the paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. The phrase "Given a model ..." would be nice but seems to require a subordinate clause[^] I am grateful for any suggestion. If you visit Stockholm I owe you a :beer: Thanks! [EDIT:] Thanks to all, and especially to Bill W & phil.o for great suggestions and explanations.
Life is too shor
-
As a non-native English speaker I am proof reading a document from a colleague. I could use a bit of advice from some fellow Loungers: Assume a model that can be described by the following paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. I do not think that is grammatically correct. Assume that we have a model that can be described by the following paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. May be proper English, but unbearable to read when repeated in several paragraphs. So I came up with: We have a model with the paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. Which did not draw cheers from the crowd. The use of "we" was frowned upon. I have to admit it does feel a tad unscientific. I dunno what to do. Perhaps: There is a model with the paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. The phrase "Given a model ..." would be nice but seems to require a subordinate clause[^] I am grateful for any suggestion. If you visit Stockholm I owe you a :beer: Thanks! [EDIT:] Thanks to all, and especially to Bill W & phil.o for great suggestions and explanations.
Life is too shor
-
As a non-native English speaker I am proof reading a document from a colleague. I could use a bit of advice from some fellow Loungers: Assume a model that can be described by the following paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. I do not think that is grammatically correct. Assume that we have a model that can be described by the following paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. May be proper English, but unbearable to read when repeated in several paragraphs. So I came up with: We have a model with the paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. Which did not draw cheers from the crowd. The use of "we" was frowned upon. I have to admit it does feel a tad unscientific. I dunno what to do. Perhaps: There is a model with the paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. The phrase "Given a model ..." would be nice but seems to require a subordinate clause[^] I am grateful for any suggestion. If you visit Stockholm I owe you a :beer: Thanks! [EDIT:] Thanks to all, and especially to Bill W & phil.o for great suggestions and explanations.
Life is too shor
Let a model be describable by paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. I am not a native English speaker either; and have no plans of visiting Stockholm :) .
-
As a non-native English speaker I am proof reading a document from a colleague. I could use a bit of advice from some fellow Loungers: Assume a model that can be described by the following paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. I do not think that is grammatically correct. Assume that we have a model that can be described by the following paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. May be proper English, but unbearable to read when repeated in several paragraphs. So I came up with: We have a model with the paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. Which did not draw cheers from the crowd. The use of "we" was frowned upon. I have to admit it does feel a tad unscientific. I dunno what to do. Perhaps: There is a model with the paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. The phrase "Given a model ..." would be nice but seems to require a subordinate clause[^] I am grateful for any suggestion. If you visit Stockholm I owe you a :beer: Thanks! [EDIT:] Thanks to all, and especially to Bill W & phil.o for great suggestions and explanations.
Life is too shor
Hard to really be more helpful without understanding the context of the publication: technical computer science paper? Is "model" some kind of Graph ? The language used in the abstract of a technical paper is usually terse, with more verbose explication in the article-body. Might try something like: (terse) Assume a model with paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D: (verbose) The model used here can be described with paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D.
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
-
As a non-native English speaker I am proof reading a document from a colleague. I could use a bit of advice from some fellow Loungers: Assume a model that can be described by the following paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. I do not think that is grammatically correct. Assume that we have a model that can be described by the following paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. May be proper English, but unbearable to read when repeated in several paragraphs. So I came up with: We have a model with the paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. Which did not draw cheers from the crowd. The use of "we" was frowned upon. I have to admit it does feel a tad unscientific. I dunno what to do. Perhaps: There is a model with the paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. The phrase "Given a model ..." would be nice but seems to require a subordinate clause[^] I am grateful for any suggestion. If you visit Stockholm I owe you a :beer: Thanks! [EDIT:] Thanks to all, and especially to Bill W & phil.o for great suggestions and explanations.
Life is too shor
/A/B/C or /A/B/D. Pick one.
-
As a non-native English speaker I am proof reading a document from a colleague. I could use a bit of advice from some fellow Loungers: Assume a model that can be described by the following paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. I do not think that is grammatically correct. Assume that we have a model that can be described by the following paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. May be proper English, but unbearable to read when repeated in several paragraphs. So I came up with: We have a model with the paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. Which did not draw cheers from the crowd. The use of "we" was frowned upon. I have to admit it does feel a tad unscientific. I dunno what to do. Perhaps: There is a model with the paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D. The phrase "Given a model ..." would be nice but seems to require a subordinate clause[^] I am grateful for any suggestion. If you visit Stockholm I owe you a :beer: Thanks! [EDIT:] Thanks to all, and especially to Bill W & phil.o for great suggestions and explanations.
Life is too shor
Personally I don't see a problem with any of the phrases. And I don't understand a need for a paper to sound a certain way, or appear clever in its writing rather than simply its subject. However I was always poorly marked for my less verbose reports and papers at school. I could never understand how people could write a paragraph or more on something that could be clearly described in a single sentence.
-
Hard to really be more helpful without understanding the context of the publication: technical computer science paper? Is "model" some kind of Graph ? The language used in the abstract of a technical paper is usually terse, with more verbose explication in the article-body. Might try something like: (terse) Assume a model with paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D: (verbose) The model used here can be described with paths /A/B/C and /A/B/D.
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
You in fact were more than helpful! I did not think that "Assume a model ..." was proper. The terse version fits like a glove. The paper is a short description of the inner workings of a software module. Thanks! I owe you a :beer: or a Singh if I happen to wander into those environs...
Life is too shor
-
"To assume" is a direct-transitive verb, so I think the expression "Assume a model that can..." (the first one) is perfectly valid.
I never finish anyth
-
Personally I don't see a problem with any of the phrases. And I don't understand a need for a paper to sound a certain way, or appear clever in its writing rather than simply its subject. However I was always poorly marked for my less verbose reports and papers at school. I could never understand how people could write a paragraph or more on something that could be clearly described in a single sentence.