english language - (Feb/27/2008 )
Just a few words:
1. I'm glad that toejam is taking the time to learn proper English grammar
2. Since this is a mistake that is commonly made by even english speakers, I don't think he'll have too many people complaining about whether he gets this one sentence right.
3. If all non-native speakers took the time to learn so much, science papers would be A LOT easier to read. I just finished a review that had some really REALLY horrible grammar problems in it all over the place. I could barely get through it, it was so difficult to read and I couldn't believe that the editors published it like that. Seriously, 90% of the errors could have been corrected if the authors had simply used grammar check and spell check. Now I can tolerate a reasonable amount of errors - I'm not an english major, and I know that the english language is difficult. But this paper was awful!! All it said to me was that the authors didn't care about what they were writing, so why should I have cared to read it? Seriously, if you're going to spend hours working on a paper at least put in half an hour or so to do a grammar check.
Ok, glad that I got that off my chest. It's been eating at me for days now. Toejam - hats off to you!
100 mg of leaf tissue were used and (were) divided etc. (You use plural because you have 100 mg. The phrase "of leaf tissue" refers to the "100 mg" and is present in the sentence to define what kind of 100 mg you used)
The same goes for the second sentence:
1 mg of tissues was used and (was) divided etc. (That's again because the subject of the sentence is "1 mg", whereas "of tissues" is just defining)
It's the same mistake that almost everybody makes:
There is a few of them (right, because the verb "is" refers to "a few" which is singular)
There is lots of them (wrong, because the verb "is" refers to "lots" which is plural)
There are lots of them (right)
Thank U f2dU
I agree 'type of tissue' is uncountable. But, there are many types of tissues. For example, U can have tissues from plants and tissues from animals. So it is not just one kind of tissue I was talking about but possibility of different kinds of tissues.
So, if some one wants to write about his experiments he is doing with muscles from mouse and leaf tissue from orchid - let us say.
so, he is using 1 mg of muscle and 1 mg of leaf.
= 1 mg of tissues were/was used.
1. I'm glad that toejam is taking the time to learn proper English grammar
2. Since this is a mistake that is commonly made by even english speakers, I don't think he'll have too many people complaining about whether he gets this one sentence right.
3. If all non-native speakers took the time to learn so much, science papers would be A LOT easier to read. I just finished a review that had some really REALLY horrible grammar problems in it all over the place. I could barely get through it, it was so difficult to read and I couldn't believe that the editors published it like that. Seriously, 90% of the errors could have been corrected if the authors had simply used grammar check and spell check. Now I can tolerate a reasonable amount of errors - I'm not an english major, and I know that the english language is difficult. But this paper was awful!! All it said to me was that the authors didn't care about what they were writing, so why should I have cared to read it? Seriously, if you're going to spend hours working on a paper at least put in half an hour or so to do a grammar check.
Ok, glad that I got that off my chest. It's been eating at me for days now. Toejam - hats off to you!
smu2
U r right. Grammar should be proper.
I am not a native speaker and am in a country where English might be in one of the worst forms. It is not that we do not make efforts to learn English but there are many limitations. I am sorry on behalf of all the non-native english speakers.
I see here every day all my friends are putting in so much time to learn English. They do not have to use English anywhere other than to read papers and publish their papers. Their knowledge of science and their techniques and experiments are better than any corner of the world but at the end when it comes to grammar it is not something that they can learn over night. I have learnt English since the first day at school but still I cannot write good English whereas for them English was a luxury than necessity. They are more than self-sufficient when it comes to language and I really appreciate them for that.
I am worried about what journal you are reading because all good journals should be having good editors. Researchers are not needed to know good english but there are professionals who are paid to make correction as a part of their job. Please write feed back to the journal so that they take measures not to make mistakes for good of everyone. The authors should just make sure that their content is correct, I think and not worry about the grammar and spellings much.
Just today evening, one of my friends who was going through his 'proof-read' paper that is going to be published soon. His English is not at good and even to finish a correct sentence he has to pause many times. His title was ' *** *** of *** **** **** among *** ****** with *****' He had given a professional native english speaker for corrections but the title was changed to ' *** *** of *** **** **** Among *** ****** With *****' He asked me why is 'of' not capitalised but 'Among' and 'With' are capitalised. I did not have an answer. I certainly was not in a position to say the native speaker made a mistake. I am still not sure if my friend was right or the professional is right.
Anyways, we will always make efforts to use correct English. Any confusions, we will post here. Help us out, please. Thank U
1. I'm glad that toejam is taking the time to learn proper English grammar
2. Since this is a mistake that is commonly made by even english speakers, I don't think he'll have too many people complaining about whether he gets this one sentence right.
3. If all non-native speakers took the time to learn so much, science papers would be A LOT easier to read. I just finished a review that had some really REALLY horrible grammar problems in it all over the place. I could barely get through it, it was so difficult to read and I couldn't believe that the editors published it like that. Seriously, 90% of the errors could have been corrected if the authors had simply used grammar check and spell check. Now I can tolerate a reasonable amount of errors - I'm not an english major, and I know that the english language is difficult. But this paper was awful!! All it said to me was that the authors didn't care about what they were writing, so why should I have cared to read it? Seriously, if you're going to spend hours working on a paper at least put in half an hour or so to do a grammar check.
Ok, glad that I got that off my chest. It's been eating at me for days now. Toejam - hats off to you!
How about this one: a reference in a paper written by a Chinese group where an author's name is written using Chinese naming conventions, where the family name is first, then the personal names. Thus the researcher Zippora Gromet-Elhanan became G.E. Zippora. Try Pubmed-ing that and see how far you get... This is not an attack on the Chinese authors, who wrote an interesting paper, but a challenge to the reviewers and the journal's publishers to correctly edit and review papers that are presented.
the tissue was divided.
one hundred mg were used.
it's just a slight difference on what you are focusing the sentence on.
when my paper was sent off, the editors didn't change any of the grammar or spelling. we got sent back the article, and was told to proof read it ourselves, with some *suggestions*.
V
when my paper was sent off, the editors didn't change any of the grammar or spelling. we got sent back the article, and was told to proof read it ourselves, with some *suggestions*.
V
So, other than science, we need proficiency in English as well. Basic grammar is ok but punctuations and all. .. cannot do them myself. And even the sentences. . . hmm .. where do I start learning grammar again from?
Isn't it asking too much?
100 mg of leaf tissue were used and (were) divided etc. (You use plural because you have 100 mg. The phrase "of leaf tissue" refers to the "100 mg" and is present in the sentence to define what kind of 100 mg you used)
The same goes for the second sentence:
1 mg of tissues was used and (was) divided etc. (That's again because the subject of the sentence is "1 mg", whereas "of tissues" is just defining)
It's the same mistake that almost everybody makes:
There is a few of them (right, because the verb "is" refers to "a few" which is singular)
There is lots of them (wrong, because the verb "is" refers to "lots" which is plural)
There are lots of them (right)
Thank U f2dU
I agree 'type of tissue' is uncountable. But, there are many types of tissues. For example, U can have tissues from plants and tissues from animals. So it is not just one kind of tissue I was talking about but possibility of different kinds of tissues.
So, if some one wants to write about his experiments he is doing with muscles from mouse and leaf tissue from orchid - let us say.
so, he is using 1 mg of muscle and 1 mg of leaf.
= 1 mg of tissues were/was used.
I understand your point. In this case, we could say: "1 mg of tissues was used" and it would be grammatically correct, but in science we need to be clear and precise, so what we should say is: "1 mg of each type of tissue was used". That's to clarify that we used 1 mg of each type of tissue, rather than 1 mg (in total) of tissue mixture.
Umm, quite not.
Meaning can be different.
'1 mg of tissues' need not mean '1 mg of each type of tissue'. 1 mg of total amount of tissue (in any proportion) - like 0.3 mg of plant and 0.7 mg of animal tissue or any other proportion or any other tissue.
What will it be then? '1mg of tissues'. . was/were.
Sorry was kidding.
But again . . '1' is a singular and 'more than one' is pleural .. .Is less than one singular or pleural? Like for example 0.5 mg of tissue was or were?
More I think about science and grammar together, more confusing it becomes for me as a non-native speaker. I cannot stop thinking and may be that is why I chose to study science than any other subject. But, I hate to think .. that's why my motto is 'simple living not thinking' but . ..
Thank U f2du. U made the rule so clear to me. I can see what U wanted us to understand. Be here with us. We will need a lot of help from U. Thank U again.
Isn't it asking too much?
I don't think you need to relearn your grammar, and I don't think that most people ask for a lot. All I would like to see is that people use what is readily available (grammar check and spell check on your word processing program that finds the common mistakes for you, makes suggestions and corrects them). You can even set up your program to highlight the errors as you're making them.
As for editors doing their job and correcting the grammar for you, I don't really know if that is in the job description. I'll admit that I don't know how most journals work. The good ones, like Science and Nature probably have editors that they hire. But I'm not sure if middle line journals do this. Most of the editors that you see listed in the journal are scientists themselves and don't have the time to proof read every paper they get. They're responsibility is more for deciding which papers get published and which don't. My point about the paper I was referring to earlier was that the english was soooo bad that anyone who had read into the first paragraph would have sent it back to be revised. And you're right, I ought to write to the journal and complain.
By the way, I commend non-native speakers for taking the time to learn english. I don't want people to get mad at me for saying that they should use proper grammar all of the time. Some of the best scientists in the world are non-english speaking, and I know that it's not fair that they have to learn english on top of everything else that they are required to do. It would be more fair if we all had to learn a new language, but then who really wants to learn latin? Like I said, all I would like to see is people use the resources that are readily available. Doing so will not only help out those who read your papers, but will help you as well because repetition is really the only way to get it to stick.
smu
smu
i think editors who are scientists give the papers they receive to their postdocs to read (is this semantically well written? just teasing). it's true that grammar is important but it is not basic, what i mean is that what is really important is that the sentence is understood. like my initial enquiry, i think everyone (native and non native english speakers) understood what i meant whether it said "was " or "were", unlike some papers i've read before that i have to reread the same paragraph like 10 times before i actually get what the author wants to say.
Well, I would not agree that minor grammar mistake should be acceptable. They might make big difference in understanding and ultimately there may be serious mistakes especially in those that deals with patient care themselves. I cannot think of example right now but I see such possibility. Kind of butterfly effect - may be.
Just going back to our example. .
* 1mg of tissues was used.
- to me this would mean there are more than one kind of tissue (plants, animals, muscles, bones . . .whatever) and the total would add up to be 1 mg.
* 1 mg each of tissue were/was (?) used.
- 1 mg of tissue A + 1 mg of tissue B + 1 mg of tissue C . . . . .
I think the scientists do not spend much time correcting the grammar and most of the journals have grammar editors who might not be mentioned in the editors; only the scientific editors are mentioned.
Grammar check and spelling check tools in word processors are useful. With them spelling mistakes in any document is intolerable; but when it comes to grammar, I never use the tool. I find it more confusing and suggestions are at many times far from standard grammar rules that even I know. So, still we have left with us is the grammar part. Unless the readers demand journals to use proper grammar, there won't be change. So, please, everyone, if U come across 'bad english' journals, please write to the journals and we can also have a list of them here and discuss the issues.
may be we should have a section for 'English' in Bioforum
(sorry not other language because English is the most important when it comes to publications though there are exceptions)