Clear? And How to Improve it?

Hi Oristar, Sorry to tell you that the paragraph is not clear.

Selecting new academicians in two the nation's academies brings on a controversy --
Some dignitaries as candidates join the selection , 18 academicians have been complained.
Is it the deficiency of the Academician System? Or is the scientific spirit fading away little by little with fickleness?

First sentence:

Selecting new academicians in two the nation's academies brings on a controversy --

The process of selecting new academicians in the nation's two academies has created a controversy.

1. "in two the nation's" needs an "of"--two of the nation's.
2. "brings on" is awkward. If you don't want to say "creates," you can say "brings about."
3. The act of selecting academicians isn't controversial. The process is.
4. You cannot end a sentence with a dash. If you want to leave the dash, then you must start what follows with a lowercase letter.
5. Although it's not wrong to say academicians and academy in the same sentence, it would be better if one of the words were changed. How about "teachers"?
6. "has created" matches the tense in the next sentence.

Second sentence:

Some dignitaries as candidates join the selection , 18 academicians have been complained.

Oristar, I'm not 100 percent sure I know what you mean here. Is the issue that dignitaries are in the running to be academicians?

1. "Some dignitaries as candidates join the selection ," The selection of what? Are the dignitaries the ones who are selecting the new academicians? Or do they want to be the new academicians?
2. It's not clear what the complaints are about.

Third sentence

Is it the deficiency of the Academician System?

What does "it" refer to? I believe that "Academician" should be changed to academic. And academic and system should both be lowecase.

Fourth sentence

Or is the scientific spirit fading away little by little with fickleness?

What scientific spirit? It has not been mentioned. What fickleness? This also hasn't been mentioned. Something doesn't fade away "with fickleness." Something may fade away because of fickleness.

Overall, Oristar, I think you need to focus on what the controversy is, why it exists, and what may be the cause of it.

Hi Roberta, I am much embarrassed that you caught out so many mistakes that I have made in the paragraph; and, of course, I am also much delighted to hear your worthful opinions on the mistakes. I understand that is because I have read too few English works; I am trying to learn standard English as much as I could, however.
Thank you Roberta.

***********
(1) Although it's not wrong to say academicians and academy in the same sentence, it would be better if one of the words were changed. How about "teachers"?

The academician in the paragragh actually means "national academician", I think I should not ignore "national" for avoiding any possible ambiguity.

(2) Is the issue that dignitaries are in the running to be academicians?
Yes, the dignitaries wants to be new national academicians.

(3) "Some dignitaries as candidates join the selection ," The selection of what? Are the dignitaries the ones who are selecting the new academicians? Or do they want to be the new academicians?

At the beginning of the paragraph, I have refered to the process of " selecting new academicians in ..." So, I dunno why the word "selection" is unclear here, because I assumed the readers must understand the selection is "selecting new academicians".
Also, I assumed that I have indicated the dignitaries "as candidates" join the selection, so it should clearly mean "they want to be the new national academicians" doubtlessly.
Roberta, I am very sorry I really don't understand you at this point.

(4) It's not clear what the complaints are about.

Yes, in that brief, it is so. The concrete content of the complaints will be analyzed in the body of the artical.

(5) Is it the deficiency of the Academician System?

What does "it" refer to? I believe that "Academician" should be changed to academic. And academic and system should both be lowecase.
"It" means the controversy. According to your opinion, I am afraid that I should rewrite the sentence as "Is the controversy pointing out the deficiency of the national academician-selecting system"?

(6) Or is the scientific spirit fading away little by little with fickleness?

What scientific spirit? It has not been mentioned. What fickleness? This also hasn't been mentioned. Something doesn't fade away "with fickleness." Something may fade away because of fickleness.

Overall, Oristar, I think you need to focus on what the controversy is, why it exists, and what may be the cause of it.
The "scientific spirit" means "the spirii of science" in generally speaking that a qualified scientist should insist on in his/her scientific and social activities. Yes, in fact I was unsure how to describe it properly.

Yeah it is as clear as crystal using "Something may fade away because of fickleness." But I don't understand why "with" could not work here. Cos "with" sometimes means "because of" or means "following"(e.g. change with the temperature)

Why the controversy exists? Because of the new academician selection. And what caused the controversy is the existence of academic corruption. And now the controversy is in an incandescent state in that nation.

Oristar, thanks for the explanations. Now all is clear to me. I'm sorry that I confused you at one point. I'll go over that again.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Roberta, I am much embarrassed that you caught out so many mistakes that I have made in the paragraph; and, of course, I am also much delighted to hear your worthful opinions on the mistakes. I understand that is because I have read too few English works; I am trying to learn standard English as much as I could, however.
Thank you Roberta. I WISH YOU WOULDN'T BE EMBARRASSED, ORISTAR. THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN LEARN IS BY DOING.

***********
(1) Although it's not wrong to say academicians and academy in the same sentence, it would be better if one of the words were changed. How about "teachers"?

The academician in the paragragh actually means "national academician", I think I should not ignore "national" for avoiding any possible ambiguity. OKAY.

(2) Is the issue that dignitaries are in the running to be academicians?
Yes, the dignitaries wants to be new national academicians. THIS CLEARS UP EVERYTHING FOR ME.

(3) "Some dignitaries as candidates join the selection ," The selection of what? Are the dignitaries the ones who are selecting the new academicians? Or do they want to be the new academicians?

At the beginning of the paragraph, I have refered to the process of " selecting new academicians in ..." So, I dunno why the word "selection" is unclear here, because I assumed the readers must understand the selection is "selecting new academicians". THE WORDING SUGGESTS THAT THE DIGNITARIES ARE JOINING THE SELECTION PROCESS--HENCE THEY COULD BE THE ONES DOING THE SELECTING. I THOUGHT YOU MEANT THAT THE DIGNITARIES WANTED TO BE THE ONES WHO SELECT--NOT THE ONES WHO ARE SELECTED.
Also, I assumed that I have indicated the dignitaries "as candidates" join the selection, so it should clearly mean "they want to be the new national academicians" doubtlessly. I THOUGHT YOUR REFERENCE TO CANDIDATES WAS ABOUT CANDIDATES TO THE SELECTION COMMITTEE.
Roberta, I am very sorry I really don't understand you at this point.
(4) It's not clear what the complaints are about.

Yes, in that brief, it is so. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN. WHAT BRIEF? The concrete content of the complaints will be analyzed in the body of the artical. OH, YOU'RE WRITING AN ARTICLE.
(5) Is it the deficiency of the Academician System?

What does "it" refer to? I believe that "Academician" should be changed to academic. And academic and system should both be lowecase.
"It" means the controversy. According to your opinion, I am afraid that I should rewrite the sentence as "Is the controversy pointing out the deficiency of the national academician-selecting system"? DOES THE CONTROVERSY REVEAL THE DEFICIENCIES IN HOW ACADEMICIANS ARE SELECTED.

(6) Or is the scientific spirit fading away little by little with fickleness?

What scientific spirit? It has not been mentioned. What fickleness? This also hasn't been mentioned. Something doesn't fade away "with fickleness." Something may fade away because of fickleness.

Overall, Oristar, I think you need to focus on what the controversy is, why it exists, and what may be the cause of it.
The "scientific spirit" means "the spirii of science" in generally speaking that a qualified scientist should insist on in his/her scientific and social activities. Yes, in fact I was unsure how to describe it properly.

Yeah it is as clear as crystal using "Something may fade away because of fickleness." But I don't understand why "with" could not work here. Cos "with" sometimes means "because of" or means "following"(e.g. change with the temperature) HOW I DISLIKE PREPOSITIONS. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE EXPRESSION "CHANGE WITH THE TEMPERATURE," SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU THINK IT WOULD BE OK TO SAY "WITH" INSTEAD OF "BECAUSE OF."

Why the controversy exists? Because of the new academician selection. THE SELECTION OF NEW ACADEMICIANS. And what caused the controversy is the existence of academic corruption. And now the controversy is in an incandescent state in that nation.

Good luck with your article, oristar. And I'm sorry to be so picky. It's an occupational hazard.

(1) ORISTAR. THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN LEARN IS BY DOING.
Sure. Thanks.


(2) I THOUGHT YOUR REFERENCE TO CANDIDATES WAS ABOUT CANDIDATES TO THE SELECTION COMMITTEE.

Thanks for your sharp eye helping me to figure out this potential factor.

(3) The brief here means the brief introduction under the headline, clicking it would jump to the body of the article.

(4) DOES THE CONTROVERSY REVEAL THE DEFICIENCIES IN HOW ACADEMICIANS ARE SELECTED.

I can almost make sure you are right. One of the roots that the academic corruption happens is that the corruption of bureaucracy of the nation -- the bureaucracy is fond of to butt in anything, by using their political force or power.

(5) HOW I DISLIKE PREPOSITIONS. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE EXPRESSION "CHANGE WITH THE TEMPERATURE," SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU THINK IT WOULD BE OK TO SAY "WITH" INSTEAD OF "BECAUSE OF."

The example "change with the temperature" is from some English language expert. I doubt that is used most likely by Britons. But without doubt, using "because of" instead of with is best to cure all.

(6) Good luck with your article, oristar. And I'm sorry to be so picky. It's an occupational hazard.

But I like it, even though you called it as "an occupational hazard"!