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?
  • 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 Oct 5 '13 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 Oct 5 '13 at 20:53

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.

  • 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 Oct 5 '13 at 20:51

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.