1

There is an existing idea, lets called it A1. This idea only work on a specific way. This leads to two main limitations. Therefore, I adapted this idea to fix its first limitation. Lets called this new idea A2. For the second limitation, I have also adapted the old idea A1 to fix its second limitation. Let's called the second adaptation A3. Hence, I have established two versions of the old idea A1. Each adaptation overcomes only one limitation of A1, so they are different. So what I tried to say is, I have derived two different versions of A1.

My question is, is it correct to say the following:

The existing idea A has been adatped two different times.

Is my setence clear and correct?

Any help, please?

  • Based on your edits to your question, I have added to my original answer. Hope this helps. – Jeff Morrow Mar 13 at 15:21
1

It is grammatical, but it may not quite convey clearly what you intend. If I understand the situation, idea A has been known for some time. It has then adapted in at least different contexts or versions, including A1 and A2. You have now created idea A3 by working with both A1 and A2. Try

My idea derives from two earlier adaptations of an old idea.

Depending on exactly what you mean, other verbs may be more apt than "derives."

EDIT: Based on your edited question, I like your final suggestion of

I have derived two different versions of idea A1.

HOWEVER, based on what you have now said about overcoming limitations in A1, you can do better than the rather neutral "derives."

For example,

Expansion A2 eliminates one limitation inherent in the old idea A1, and expansion A3 eliminates a different limitation.

I think the above captures a number of points

A2 and A3 are new variations on an old idea.

Both variations are improvements.

The variations make different improvements.

  • Thank you so much for your answer. Just for clarification, idea A1 is known. I have adatped it two times. That is, I have established A2 and A2. So, I have dervied two new versions of idea A1. These two versions are different. – F.Thomas Mar 13 at 3:40
  • I have edited my question. – F.Thomas Mar 13 at 3:48
  • What about saying, My paper proposed two main adaptations of idea A. – F.Thomas Mar 13 at 5:10
  • Amazing help! Thank you so much. – F.Thomas Mar 14 at 0:04
1

Iv think the word "adapt" may not be the best choice here. As Collins dictionary suggests, an person adapts (to a new surgeon or requirements) by changing his ideas - it is not the ideas that adapt. "Adapt" can be used in the passive Vince add in your example, but it is usually done in when discussing new versions of works of art such as books or movies, and not for changes in general. The difference is subtle but it exists.

You may want to use other words for the process (that can happen more than once) of changing an idea or a solution: modify,, alter, or (informally in some technical areas) tweak.

1

It is difficult to build on your sentence AND to make it clear that ideas A2 and A3 are not consecutive (A1-> A2 -> A3), but in parallel (A1 -> A2, A1 -> A3).

So I came up with the following:

Ideas A2 and A3 have both been adapted from idea A1 (by taking into consideration the different limitations affecting idea A1).

Maybe these can fit also:

The existing idea A1 evolved into two new independent ideas.

or:

The existing idea A1 evolved into two new diverging ideas.

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.