DEMAINE Benoit-Pierre wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> It looks like many people mis-understood me:
>
> - - if I knew my english to be perfect, I would not ask for help.
>
> - - the subject I choosed for this thread is not: "hey guys I ve done a
> great work, you should read this", but "I need some heavy help, who has
> time to afford me ?"
>
> - - I dont want to force any one, but if any one really want to help me,
> then I tell by advance which kind of help I want. That is why I wrote :
> "Readers shall/are expected to" ... if you dont want to be a reader it
> is up to you.
>
> - - I very shortly describe my thesis in the post so that if the topic
> bores any one, he can forget me; but if is interesed, it is up to him to
> read it all ( or part ).
>
> Is that fair ?
>

I still think you should get an english major to look at it.
Preferrably a really good looking one in your preference of gender.
Reward him/her by taking him/her out to dinner -- perhaps oysters with
lots and lots of wine. Then suggest that you need to go back to your
room to take another look. Then discover that you just happen to have
some champaign stashed away.

The rest is up to you, but remember: a good engineer kills two birds
with one stone.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

In article <41b8b206$0$9721$a1866201@visi.com>,
Grant Edwards wrote:
>>> Another thing is your frequent use of sentences using
>>> "I", which makes it look more like a blog than a scientific text. E.g.
>>
>> There is an historical reason : I wrote first the logbook, which you
>> could call a blog. For this project I am used to speak in my own name.
>
>For whatever the reason, it's traditional to use passive voice
>in scientific/technical academic writing. Sometime's it's a
>bit awkward, but that's how it's done.

Nonsense! It's only "traditional" and "how it's done" because many
technical people don't know how to write well, and/or are too lazy
to write well, and/or don't know any better.

This is a pet peeve of mine. I routinely see technical papers
filled with passive voice (i.e. boring) sentences that COULD have
been written better in active voice (i.e. interesting, attention
grabbing) WITHOUT resorting to the personal pronoun "I". Take this
exerpt from the OP's paper:

"In endebbed and limited systems, I want the computing time to be
constant, and the error ratio to be the same for each computation.
The use of random search may increase slightly the speed of the
process, but since that can introduce big variations of error
ratio, I don't want to use it."

Someone else suggested substituting "it is desrible for..." for "I
want...." I disagree. That makes the sentence boring. I suggest:

In embedded and limited systems, the computing time should
stay constant, and the error ratio should not change in each
computation. A random search may increase slightly the speed of
the process; however, this gain occurs at the expense of large
variations in error ratio.

Even substituting "we" is acceptable in technical papers. I see it
often, and I like it because it allows one to communicate in active
voice without using "I":

In embedded and limited systems, we desire consistency in
computing time and error ratio in each computation. We avoid
random searches because the slight gain in speed fails to
compensate for the resultant large variation in error ratio.

-Alex

In article <41b8b206$0$9721$a1866201@visi.com>,
Grant Edwards wrote:

>For whatever the reason, it's traditional to use passive voice
>in scientific/technical academic writing. Sometime's it's a
>bit awkward, but that's how it's done.

This statement is too broad. In some areas, third person passive
is considered a defunct tradition. Maths and Computer Science often
write in the active. The American Chemical Society recommends first
person active; the American Psychological Association third person
passive.

In article <10rhejm910eue1d@corp.supernews.com>,
Tim Wescott wrote:
>I still think you should get an english major to look at it.
>Preferrably a really good looking one in your preference of gender.
>Reward him/her by taking him/her out to dinner -- perhaps oysters with
>lots and lots of wine. Then suggest that you need to go back to your
>room to take another look. Then discover that you just happen to have
>some champaign stashed away.
>
>The rest is up to you, but remember: a good engineer kills two birds
>with one stone.

That's the best suggestion I've seen in this thread!

Unfortunately it's not something I could have done when I was in
school. Others would come to me to proofread their stuff, since I
was known to be able to write well.

-A

DEMAINE Benoit-Pierre.

>> Remember, a thesis is supposed to be all your *own* work. Surely, he could
>> have got a friend or someone in the University dept. to have a look, esp.
>> as he's not specifically after technical pointers. Also, I don't
>> understand why he wants us to see before his supervisor. It's just as much
>> in his interest that you pass as it is yours, it's part of his supervisory
>> role to check the final report/thesis.
>> My comments may have been harsh, but I feel fair.
>
> In fact, I dont feel confident with my tutor.
>
Qui se dévoue pour forwarder ça à l'intéressé ?

On 2004-12-09, axlq wrote:
> In article <41b8b206$0$9721$a1866201@visi.com>,
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>>>> Another thing is your frequent use of sentences using
>>>> "I", which makes it look more like a blog than a scientific text. E.g.
>>>
>>> There is an historical reason : I wrote first the logbook, which you
>>> could call a blog. For this project I am used to speak in my own name.
>>
>>For whatever the reason, it's traditional to use passive voice
>>in scientific/technical academic writing. Sometime's it's a
>>bit awkward, but that's how it's done.
>
> Nonsense!

So you're claiming it's not traditional to use active voice?
You must read different journals and attend different schools
than I.


--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Boys, you have ALL
at been selected to LEAVE th'
visi.com PLANET in 15 minutes!!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

| In embedded and limited systems, the computing time should
| stay constant, and the error ratio should not change in each
| computation. A random search may increase slightly the speed of
| the process; however, this gain occurs at the expense of large
| variations in error ratio.

I desegree with you : the phrasing
"the computing time should stay constant"
means that I put authority to claim it is right, what is not my aim. I
am not experienced enough to claim that what _I_ think _is_ right !!!

That is why I dont want to use that kind of phrasing. It could make the
reader think that what I write /is/ the only truth ... whereas I expect
many parts of my report to be, in worse case, wrong, or at least
possibly not the only solution ...

- --
DEMAINE Benoît-Pierre http:/www.demaine.info/
\_o< apt-get remove ispell >o_/
There're 10 types of people: those who can count in binary and those who
can't
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBuMlzGWSTLbOSw8IRAjEBAJ9xsLs/F2gVfpG4ScZa0ZHogj/28gCgp4od
pU9ZHabJRhF3pCqzvCpQeGM=
=JUcc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> I still think you should get an english major to look at it. Preferrably
> a really good looking one in your preference of gender. Reward him/her
> by taking him/her out to dinner -- perhaps oysters with lots and lots of
> wine. Then suggest that you need to go back to your room to take
> another look. Then discover that you just happen to have some champaign
> stashed away.
>
> The rest is up to you, but remember: a good engineer kills two birds
> with one stone.

Your two peaces of advice are quiet interesting, but I definitively can
not follow any of them at the moment.



--
DEMAINE Benoît-Pierre http:/www.demaine.info/
\_o< apt-get remove ispell >o_/
There're 10 types of people: those who can count in binary and those who
can't

In article ,
DEMAINE Benoit-Pierre wrote:
>axlq wrote:
>| In embedded and limited systems, the computing time should
>| stay constant, and the error ratio should not change in each
>| computation. A random search may increase slightly the speed of
>| the process; however, this gain occurs at the expense of large
>| variations in error ratio.
>
>I desegree with you : the phrasing
>"the computing time should stay constant"
>means that I put authority to claim it is right, what is not my aim. I
>am not experienced enough to claim that what _I_ think _is_ right !!!

I don't think my phrasing does that. Saying "the computing time
MUST stay constant" carries more authority than "the computing time
SHOULD stay constant." But if that's still too strong, make it
"We prefer the computing time to stay constant" if you like. All
of those are active-voice sentences that avoid using the personal
pronoun "I" which makes it sound like a blog.

My point was, writing in the active voice makes your message
clearer, having more impact on the reader. I made no claim to know
what you were writing about, I went strictly by the English I read,
and suggested ways to improve it, without knowing the intent behind
what you wrote.

I hope you liked the second sentence in my suggested changed
paragraph better.

-Alex

FLY135 wrote:

> Not
> only that but after admonishing you for spamming, they set about to spam
> with a debate over how much skill in English you should of had.
>
> The whole thing is quite funny really.
>
>

I just have to ask if this is deliberate: it is the first time I have seen
"should of" in any public newsgroup; and of course it's doubly funny in a thread
about good English!

Richard Dobson

FLY135 wrote:

> Not
> only that but after admonishing you for spamming, they set about to spam
> with a debate over how much skill in English you should of had.
>
> The whole thing is quite funny really.
>
>

I just have to ask if this is deliberate: it is the first time I have seen
"should of" in any public newsgroup; and of course it's doubly funny in a thread
about good English!

Richard Dobson

Grant Edwards wrote:

...

> For whatever the reason, it's traditional to use passive voice
> in scientific/technical academic writing. Sometime's it's a
> bit awkward, but that's how it's done.

That's so, but we should applaud those who buck the trend in favor of
directness.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Jerry Avins wrote:
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
>>For whatever the reason, it's traditional to use passive voice
>>in scientific/technical academic writing. Sometime's it's a
>>bit awkward, but that's how it's done.
>
>
> That's so, but we should applaud those who buck the trend in favor of
> directness.
>
> Jerry

I agree. the passive voice always sounds like the author is trying to
avoid taking responsibility for what they are writing.

Steve

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:56:17 +0000, DEMAINE Benoit-Pierre wrote:

>> Sorry, but that doesn't wash with me. The OP's doing a Masters degree at
>> an English University, so he should have more than a simple grasp of the
>> English language. Politeness is not a language issue. BTW I'm pretty
>
> You would be surprised to see how easy it was to enter this university;
> and I can sware you that many students can get their degree and go back
> home after a year not even knowing how to ask their way in town ( in
> english ).

Well that speaks volumes about Staffordshire University and the value of
degrees they award. TBH I'd not even heard of the place and I only live an
hour away.

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:59:40 +0000, DEMAINE Benoit-Pierre wrote:

>> It's really stupid to assume that what's cross posted remains a secret.
>> He may not care.
>
> I dont see your point at all. Is a final year report expected to be a
> secret ? It is before all a university research ... the aim of my work
> is to improove my computing knowledge, and that every one should benefit
> of my work. Any way, the university will double publish it: once in
> their own library, once in the national library in London. This is why I
> am looking for rereaders.

Where no-one will read it! I'm sorry, but it's true. PhD and Masters
theses are very rarely read by anyone outside of the dept. where you did
the work. If there's anything of value in a thesis it should be published
in a peer-reviewed journal which has much more (inter)national clout in
terms of reliability of quality of findings.

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:38:05 +0000, DEMAINE Benoit-Pierre wrote:

>> That bugs me too when I hear people phrase things like that. If they
>> expect a favor, the least they can do is phrase the request politely.
>
> If I expected my english to be good, I would not look for re-readers. I
> may be wrong for many things. That is right, even in the way I ask for
> help.

If you were only interested in correcting language errors you shouldn't
have posted to technical ngs (all *8* of them). BTW aren't proof-reading
facilities available at Staffs Uni. I know at my University there are
plenty of notices around campus from people prepared to proof-read and/or
type-up theses for non-native English speakers. If there are so many
foreigners at your place as you say, I would expect a lot of this going
on.

"Richard Dobson" wrote in message
news:6B4ud.33977$up1.4325@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
> FLY135 wrote:
>
> > Not
> > only that but after admonishing you for spamming, they set about to
spam
> > with a debate over how much skill in English you should of had.
> >
> > The whole thing is quite funny really.
> >
> >
>
> I just have to ask if this is deliberate: it is the first time I have seen
> "should of" in any public newsgroup; and of course it's doubly funny in a
thread
> about good English!
>
> Richard Dobson

If you double post it to alt.grammer you might be able to start a good
discussion.

"FLY135"

> If you double post it to alt.grammer you might be able to start a good
> discussion.

By the way, I'd like to ask all the contributors of this thread to
stop posting in fr.sci.maths, which is a french speaking group.

I suppressed it from the list of recipients for this post; I subscribe
temporarily to comp.dsp so that I'll be able to read your answers, if
some.

Thank you in advance.

DEMAINE Benoit-Pierre wrote:

[snip]

Je me permets d'intervenir ici en tant qu'humble matheux (je lis ce
newsgroup (fr.sci.maths) avec intérêt, mais je crains de ne jamais y poster
vu mon pitoyable niveau) mais surtout en tant qu'habitué d'Usenet.

Vous avez eu droit à deux sortes de reproches : l'un concernait vos choix de
termes en anglais, et je me garderai bien d'y répondre), l'autre votre
méconnaissance du media Usenet et de ses règles. Je peux vous éclairer sur
le deuxième point.

Il est d'usage d'éviter les publications sur plusieurs groupes sans y mettre
un suivi-à (followup-to ou FU2) adapté. Le followup-to indiquant la
redirection de tous les messages en réponse vers un seul newsgroup, il
permet :
- de grouper toutes les réponses en un seul newsgroup ;
- d'éviter d'encombrer les autres newsgroups.
Poster un message sous 8 newsgroups, et qui plus est sans FU2, est considéré
comme un spam. Un fournisseur d'accès sérieux aurait d'ailleurs dû interdire
la diffusion de votre message.

Pour toutes vos questions sur Usenet et ses usages, voyez
news:fr.usenet.usages .

------------

[English version] Hi everybody. Nothing interesting here, just trying to
redirect the thread where it belongs...

--

Stan the Man