I have written the following construction 2 months ago.

Our modification addresses the problem where objects that are attached to the dominant vertical object are described.

Now I am confused with the last two words and thinking that these 2 words can not be joined to get a single sentence. So, do you think that keeping these two words make sense and follow the grammatical rules?

  • 2
    It is grammatically correct, but you are saying that the problem to be solved by your modification is the fact that somebody described certain objects.
    – The Photon
    Sep 11, 2013 at 0:08
  • @The Photon: It's stretching a point to say OP's example is "grammatical". It's bordering on meaningless - but certainly as a minimum, where should probably be whereby. Anyway, it's proofreading. Sep 11, 2013 at 2:21
  • It doesn't have to make sense to be grammatical, but I think that's why the OP asked if it's grammatical and asked if it makes sense.
    – user230
    Sep 11, 2013 at 5:33

2 Answers 2


This is the negative example of writer's mantra "Don't use passive voice".

The sentence is correct, makes sense, but is misguiding. It makes it sound like the fact that these attached objects are described is a problem to be addressed. No, the sentence merely identifies the problem as the one describing these elements (and some problems with them). Still, the passive voice moves the focus of the sentence from "problem" and "elements" to "described", as if that description was the source of the problem.

That constitutes a stylistic error.

Our modification addresses the problem involving objects that are attached to the dominant vertical object.

That way involving (a weaker verb than "describe") merely connects the two focal points of the sentence: the problem and the attached objects, instead of becoming a focal point itself.


It does seem to make sense however we'll have to see the second half of the sentence to answer it in full.

  • What second half? This is a correct, complete sentence. Grammatically, it's awkward but not incorrect. Semantically, it would require an unusual context to make sense. Sep 11, 2013 at 9:22

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .