2

I have seen a lot of sentences that end with another (typically) smaller sentences, often starting with "with", which give a description of some word that was introduced in the main sentence. I do not remember any specific sentence right now (sorry), but I want to compose such a sentence in my academic paper. This is how I write it:

Bonferroni’s post-hoc test was employed, with its results shown in table 3.

I am suspicious about the highlighted part. I don't know the underlying grammar for it. Is it correct as is? Should there be tense consistency (past-present-future) between main sentence (first part) and the descriptive part? Or always progressive verbs (-ing) should be used? For example, which one of the following is preferred?

Bonferroni’s post-hoc test was employed, with its results being shown in table 3.

Or

Bonferroni’s post-hoc test was employed, with its results that were shown in table 3.

  • Bonferroni's post hoc test was employed; the results of which are shown in table 3. However, I find nothing wrong with your initial sentence other than the unnecessary hyphen. – Joe Dark Dec 27 '14 at 12:51
2

Bonferroni’s post-hoc test was employed, with its results shown in table 3.

You are right, IMO, to be suspicious of your sentence. Normally such a with-clause modifies or qualifies:

Bonferroni’s post-hoc test was employed, with the confidence interval adjusted to ___.

But here your with clause is simply an addendum to the main idea, not a qualification, so a simple "and" would suffice:

Bonferroni’s post-hoc test was employed and its results are shown in table 3.

or a semicolon:

Bonferroni’s post-hoc test was employed; its results are shown in table 3.

  • then how should I correct the my sentence to keep using with? I like using with for adding qualification or whatever you said to my sentence. What is the correct format? – codezombie Dec 27 '14 at 15:11
  • Your second quote seems to be using the same wording style as mine. what is the difference? – codezombie Dec 27 '14 at 15:14
  • I wasn't talking about "style" but about the kind of idea that typically occurs in such a with-clause. The fact that the results are shown in Table 3 has nothing to do with the test per se, or how it was used, the parameters involved, etc. – Tᴚoɯɐuo Dec 27 '14 at 15:46

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.