I have the following constructions:

  1. Conversely, automatic canopy detection is often failed in dense scenes.
  2. Therefore, efficient and more specific solutions are demanded.

What would be an acceptable way to combine above ideas into one sentence? I have written it as follows but I brought the verb to the front.

Conversely, automatic canopy detection is often failed in dense scenes, which demanded efficient and more specific solutions.

Is this correct?

2 Answers 2


Well, the usage of which in your combined sentence should be correct. It is a form of non-restrictive relative clause, which refers back to the whole main clause.

I found a case from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_clause#Finite_and_non-finite

A non-restrictive relative clause may have a whole sentence as its antecedent rather
than a specific noun phrase; for example:
    * The cat was allowed on the bed, which annoyed the dog.
Here, which refers back (presumably) not to the bed or the cat, but to the entire 
proposition expressed in the main clause, namely the circumstance that the cat was
allowed on the bed.

However, I'd like to suggest some modifications to your sentence for other reasons.

Conversely, automatic canopy detection often fails in dense scenes, which demands more specific solutions.

The first modification is to replace is often failed to often fails. I cannot say for sure the first form is wrong, but the second one is more concise to me.

The second modification is to use present tense in the relative clause, because I see no need to use past tense when you are stating a fact.

The third one is about connecting adjectives of the same degree of comparison together with and, so more efficient and more specific instead of efficient and more specific.

And as Jim pointed out, only more specific can be deduced from the main clause.

  • 1
    +1 But I would note that the inclusion of efficient at all here is probably incorrect. Nothing in the sentence demands an efficient solution only a more specific one. The fact that the more specific solution happens to be [more] efficient is just gravy. Now if the preceding sentence had said, Conversely automatic canopy detection in dense scenes causes [looping, thrashing, recursion, CPU loading] in the general solution- then you could talk about demand for a more efficient solution.
    – Jim
    Commented Jun 25, 2013 at 3:07
  • @Jim I'd say you are probably right. I had similiar thoughts on that one. Commented Jun 25, 2013 at 3:54

We can't say that the OP is necessarily using the present tense. She could be summarizing findings from an experiment, for example. I would suggest "Conversely, automatic canopy detection failed in dense scenes, which therefore demanded more specific solutions." as being closest to the original.

You must log in to answer this question.

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