4

When I am describing a figure caption in a technical paper, I think it should be concise. So what should I say if I am describing a poly line whose irregularities are preserved by the technique that we adopted. So, if I write:

  1. A poly line edge having preserved major irregularities
  2. A poly line edge with preserved major irregularities

What would be most appropriate?

  • I'd say that they are equally appropriate – akkatracker Oct 3 '13 at 2:48
  • I think you could also move preserved to the end. – snailboat Oct 3 '13 at 9:29
  • @snailboat: that mean => A poly line edge "having" major irregularities "preserved" – gnp Oct 3 '13 at 13:17
  • 1
    I'd prefer “with” or “that has”. “Having” sounds incorrect, probably due to tense mismatch with “preserved” (present progressive vs. simple past). – Tyler James Young Oct 3 '13 at 17:53
  • I'm aware that “preserved” is functioning as an adjective here, but if you'll forgive my non-technical description I think my point still stands. – Tyler James Young Oct 3 '13 at 18:18
1

They are both grammatically correct.

However, when reading (and writing) technical papers, I am a big proponent of clear and concise wording. #2 sounds better, with Tyler James Young's suggestion of moving "preserved" to the end:

A poly line edge with major irregularities preserved.

Why use two syllables (having) when you can use one (with)? This says exactly what you need to say with no syllables wasted.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.