There is no need for a conjunction; the second clause is not independent but a subordinate relative clause modifying novels:
... the film versions of which have been ...
This is a common inversion of the ‘canonical’ order
... of which the film versions have been ...
As you saw with my deleted answer, your sentence is open to different interpretations. Don't be afraid of using more words if it makes your text clearer. Something like this might work:
With this option you can only enter your company name; you cannot enter an active link to your website.
has been implies the validation is still in effect.
If you use was, you might write:
The system was certified as producing valid results in 2007, and the certificate expired in 2011.
Saying the system was validated doesn't prohibit something to happen later that invalidated it again.
As explained at the question to which snailboat links, English does not employ the abbreviation resp., and it does not use the term respectively this way.
In any case, this is an awkward way to express your thought in any language. It seems more efficient (particularly to programmers, who tend to actually think this way!); but the efficiency is illusory. ...
Identify unnecessary or vague ‘filler’ words.
Are you defining the idea behind the process? —It appears that what you are really doing is describing what the process does.
What does common mean here? Common to what? —it appears to mean that it includes the outer ends of all the lines.
Pin down what's left that needs to be defined in detail.
Let's start by fixing up the grammar and readability of your first sentence. You wrote:
Line segments shorter than to a certain threshold are removed by assuming that have been formed by noisy data.
There are several problems here. "shorter than to a certain threshold" doesn't make sense; the "to" is extraneous, and we describe things as being below a ...
Since your condition matching is either...or case, the given three sentences can be merged as follows:
The idea behind the process is to find a common envelope which should
either be going through the longest line's outer end or accommodate
all the lines' outer ends on to that.
@StoneyB's suggestion is a good, concise solution.
"Orientation rectifies the line segments, but awkward short edges call
for a simplification step."
It does a number of things:
Changes passive voice to active. Active voice tends to be shorter, as it replaces 'are rectified by' with 'rectify'.
'but awkward short edges' replaced 'awkward short edges ...
You should remove "so". Removing "because" is also possible but not recommended.
You can read more details below.
Conjunctions: 'so' and 'because'
So and because are both conjunctions, and both can be used to join two clauses together: a reason/cause clause with a result/consequence clause. Basically, these two patterns are equivalent:
Comma splices are stylistic errors only when the clauses are long. Two short clauses such as you have can be joined by commas without any problem.
Strunk & White notes that splices are sometimes acceptable when the clauses are short and alike in form, such as:
The gate swung apart, the bridge fell, the portcullis was drawn up.
The famous ...
Let's start with the stylistic awkwardnesses.
Horror aequi That’s a term from linguistics meaning “dread of the same thing”. Your opening stretch uses the same construction three times in a row: NP of NP of NP of NP, and the middle stretch uses it again: reconstruction of roof corner topologies. Repeating the same ...
The -ing phrases are participle phrases.
They are allowed at the end of sentences, but you want to be careful that you don't accidentally make a misplaced modifier:
*"Steve stood and watched a man, running his hands through is hair." This sentence is not good because it is hard to tell if Steve running his hands through his hair, or if the man Steve ...
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 ...
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 ...
This is the negative example of writer's mantra "Don't use passive voice".
The sentence is correct, makes sense, but is misguiding. It makes it sound like the fact that these attached objects are described is a problem to be addressed. No, the sentence merely identifies the problem as the one describing these elements (and some problems with them). Still, ...
Your way of combining the two sentences is basically correct. However there are several problems with the first sentence.
In “shorter than to a certain threshold”, that to doesn't belong. This should be “shorter than a certain threshold”.
In the last clause of the first sentence, have been formed lacks a subject, which should be they (referring to the line ...
You could clean up the original sentence with "for which" in the question to make it perfectly grammatical, but I think I'd recommend the sentence below for clarity. Jim and David's suggestions are also possible.
This step is needed to reduce the effect of the artifacts the data suffers from.
I felt I had to change your word order a bit - or split your sentence into two main clauses:
The subordinates have had to take these steps in accordance with instructions of the top management of the company, for which it is a bit unfair to blame them.
The word order "for what to blame them is a bit unfair" , slightly better "for which to blame them is ...
The punctuation is wrong and this makes it confusing.
What I think you mean is
I made a choice the last time I was here, and I didn't see any then either, and I failed.
There are 3 clauses here
I made a choice last time I was here.
I didn't see any (last time I was here) (either this time or last time)
In speech, it might be clear what you ...
This isn't really suited for here but I'll answer it.
non satifsfaction doesn't really make English sense so I'd probably say. "does not satisfy the circle constraint"
You should be ok to describe another condition as long as you don't include too many.
Your sentences look fine to me. One possible way to make the reading smoother is to move the reference to the front or the back. For example,
As described by Horde and Susan (2012), in regularization of outer-boundaries, boundary line segments can be first fitted from irregularly distributed contour points, and then rectified by rotating their mid-points ...
Here is one possible way to rephrase your sentence,
Although Sampath and Shan (2010) reconstructed 3D buildings by intersecting adjacent planes derived from segmentation, Lafarge and Mallet (2012) employed mesh-patches to represent planar faces, and irregular roof forms, such as cones and spheres.
(Also note that I'm not sure what technique Lafarge and ...
Basically its OK, but such a long sentence can be difficult to follow and understand. So rather than use so many conjuctions you could break it up into two sentences where the topics are not the same. For example:
If you were wondering why I have two accounts, it is because the other one is too public.
I'm still using it but (I'm) no longer posting or ...
That sentence is not quite right. Strip out some of the adjectives, and you get "capturing methods are advantages", which isn't grammatically right.
I think you want something more like "Terrestrial point cloud scanning by MLS is an economic, flexible, and rapid method to generate detailed façade geometry and 3D tree models over large urban areas."
I think I get this. You're talking about using millions of points of data to capture a shape digitally.
Ok, you have three or four ideas jammed into one sentence. You'll need to trim some of them out and break the rest up into something more digestible. Let's see if I can help you organize your thoughts a bit better.
The primary purpose of your sentence ...
While your question is technically about the right way to incorporate that final clause into your sentence, I would actually advise that you break the sentence up for improved readability.
Information related to the study's variables was collected using Goldman's Standard Questionnaire and the questionnaire by Sherer et al. Goldman's Standard ...
The combined sentence as you have it is technically correct (except that "Collection of" is better usage than "Collecting," and you seem to be missing a comma in "Sherer**,** et al.").
But the first part is a rather complex sentence as it is, and I'd probably just give the bit about the distribution of the questionnaires a second sentence all of its own:
Suppose that we have created a context named “Products” using two
anchors, “Results” as the beginning and “PageNavigationBar” as the
ending anchors and "Between" as its scope.
The sentence would benefit from simplification.
Suppose that we have created a context using a starting anchor, "Results", and an ending anchor, "PageNavigationBar". Let's call ...