1

I am having following ideas.

  1. we employ both 2D and 3D shape knowledge to the working process.
  2. This leads in distinguishing objects-A from other objects-B efficiently.

then,

we employ both 2D and 3D shape knowledge to the processing working process, which leads in distinguishing objects-A from other objects-B efficiently.

Is it enough only to use "which" to combine these 2 sentence?

  • 2
    "Efficiently" does not belong at the end of the sentence: "which leads to efficiently distinguishing objects-A from other objects-B" is normal word order. Putting the /-ly/ adverb at the end of the sentence suggests to me that your native language is Chinese. – user264 Apr 29 '13 at 10:13
  • Other issues aside, the answer to your question is Yes. 'Which' serves as an excellent join for the two sentences (and in my opinion is more natural than trying to split the single up idea (essentially 'B happens because A'). – mcalex Apr 29 '13 at 12:16
  • 2
    @BillFranke What's wrong with using the adverb at the end of the sentence? This is common enough usage. – Ken Bellows Apr 29 '13 at 16:37
  • @KenB: Ideally, adverbs, especially adverbs of manner, immediately precede or succeed the sentence element they modify: He quickly ran down the stairs or He ran quickly down the stairs, not He ran down the stairs quickly. Separating modifiers from the elements they modify can cause confusion. In the OP's S, it causes the phonic phart that always signals poor style. Sentence-final adverbs of manner are frequently, but not always, intended to modify the entire preceding clause, not a verb, as in this case, 100 miles away. – user264 Apr 30 '13 at 0:12
  • In addition, the argument This is common enough usage applies to stupidities like Don't gamble or you'll loose all your money! and A snake sheds it's skin many times a year. In the social and legal worlds, two wrongs don't make a right; only in the world of English usage can myriad solecisms make a standard (sic), natural (sic), acceptable (sic), and grammatically correct (sic) "idiom" (I call these "idiotisms") like "He gave it to John and I" (cf. CGEL, p. 9) – user264 Apr 30 '13 at 0:23
2

The "which" is fine, but in this case you can get a better sentence overall without it:

We use both 2D and 3D shape knowledge in the processing working process, in order to efficiently distinguish objects-A from objects-B.

"processing working process" sounds weird too, but I don't know what you're referring to so I can't make any suggestions.

0

It's technically correct to combine the sentences in that way. With the correction from the comments to your original phrase:

  • We employ both 2D and 3D shape knowledge to the processing working process, which leads to efficiently distinguishing objects-A from other objects-B.

However, for a cause-and-effect, you can replace "cause, which leads to effect" with simply "To effect, cause"

  • To efficiently distinguish objects-A from objects-B, we employ both 2D and 3D shape knowledge to the working process.

It could, perhaps, be more clear with:

  • To efficiently distinguish objects-A from objects-B, we employ knowledge of both 2D and 3D shapes to the working process.

This removes the ambiguity as to whether you mean

apply ( both (2D) and (3D shape knowledge) )

or

apply ( both (2D) and (3D) ) shape knowledge

The second meaning is what I assume is correct, but it seems easier to understand

apply knowledge of ( both 2D and 3D ) shapes

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.