2

Here, I am confused about how to make a meaningful sentence.

This is my idea. I want to say:

Another example for under-segmentation is shown in Fig 14. By this effect, nearby dormers have merged. Because of that, an edge referring to a dormer is lost.

So, I express my idea more concisely like this:

Another instance of being under-segmentation is illustrated in (Fig. 14) in which the nearby dormers have merged and it causes to lose a graph edge.

So, my questions are:

  • Am I correctly using the word being? I am always confused about when to use it.
  • Does in which refer to the idea by this effect?
Improve this question
2
  • 1
    being under-segmentation would become being under-segmented. I haven't heard by this effect and neither found anything relevant in Google, so I am assuming it is your personal usage. If I think about the literal meaning of it, in which isn't quite meaning the same; I am not claiming in which makes the sentence wrong, but it is not being used the same way By the effect was used.
    – Mistu4u
    Commented Oct 5, 2013 at 18:46
  • 1
    it causes to lose a graph edge is ungrammatical: you must either convert to a noun phrase, it causes loss of a graph edge, or provide the verb lose with a subject, it causes [something] to lose a graph edge.
    – StoneyB on hiatus
    Commented Oct 5, 2013 at 20:53

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

In “Another instance of being under-segmentation is illustrated...” in your second quote, use of being isn't wrong; however, segmentation should be segmented, a past participle.

In the balance of the sentence (which, with a grammar fix, is “... in (Fig. 14) in which the nearby dormers have merged and caused loss of a graph edge”), in which primarily refers to Fig. 14, and secondarily to “Another instance”. I don't see any way to read it as referring to under-segmentation. Consider a revision like the following.

Fig. 14, where nearby dormers have merged, is another example of under-segmentation, with consequent loss of a graph edge.

Improve this answer
1
  • 2
    As you say, Another instance of being undersegmented isn't wrong, but the construction with being is superfluous: Another instance of under-segmentation would be better.
    – StoneyB on hiatus
    Commented Oct 5, 2013 at 20:51

You must log in to answer this question.

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