Reply
Thu 15 Jul, 2004 10:48 am
Do you think "take kidney failure" is proper in grammar?
Context:
The development of anti-resistance drugs and advanced surgeries could save people's lives, but over two thirds of patients still die of organ failure due to the shortage of donated organs worldwide.
Take kidney failure, the most widespread type of organ failure, as an example. Among the over 1 million Chinese patients suffering from this ailment, half could be saved by a kidney transplanted. But each year only about 5,000 kidney transplants are performed in China and many patients die waiting for a matching organ.
It is proper, Oristar, though it is a casual form. Your example uses the second person in its implied subject.
With the subject in place and removing the identifying phrase the sentence would read and could easily be parsed:
<You> take kidney failure as an example.
Thanks Piffka.
I should not be so careless...
You are welcome. Oristar, I have loads of respect for your growing knowledge of English. "Careless" is not a word I would associate with you.
The phrase you found is startling... nobody wants to "take a disease."
Be well!
You can replace "take" with "consider" and still be less formal. "Consider kidney failure..." This is still to informal for technical writing, but in most circumstances will be just fine.
Hi PD. My reasoning about the informality of the sentence was due to the implied use of the second person. It is funny though, since implying the second person is a clever and well-known way to get around the rules against using the second person found in more formal writing.
However, I don't think there is anything wrong with casual or informal writing. On the contrary, it can be very effective. Whenever a writer uses "you" or "yours," the obvious explanation is to connect the reader with the subject.
I don't think there's anything wrong with it, either. In fact, I can't stand technical writing -- but I'm guessing that it is something that Oristar brushes up against, from some of what (s)he asks about.
Oristar, You probably know that the second person form is rarely used on the front page of a newspaper or in a scholarly paper. The rest of the wording of your example seemed to be in the third person which is, I guess, why I mentioned it.
No one really likes technical writing, I think, not the people who read it and surely not those who write it. Though, as it happens, PD, I would often use the second person form, either implied or direct, when writing user guides. It was one of the big differences between those and most other technical documents.
Ah, good point, that -- user guides.
I worked for a researcher at the UW (Washington) who I am convinced preferred technical to narrative writing. He understood everything in terms of technical aspects; stories were completely lost on him, even when they had a direct bearing on his life or even (more important, to him) his work.
He is an odd, odd man, though.
NOT that anybody reads user guides except as a last resort. Your fella sounds odd, yes. Was he an engineer?
Re: Take kidney failure
oristarA wrote:Do you think "take kidney failure" is proper in grammar?
Context:
The development of anti-resistance drugs and advanced surgeries could save people's lives, but over two thirds of patients still die of organ failure due to the shortage of donated organs worldwide.
Take kidney failure, the most widespread type of organ failure, as an example. Among the over 1 million Chinese patients suffering from this ailment, half could be saved by a kidney transplanted. But each year only about 5,000 kidney transplants are performed in China and many patients die waiting for a matching organ.
Leave out "take" and just write:
for example, kidney failure is the most widespread type of organ failure.
Enzymologist, with forays into drug design. He and a couple of his colleagues there won a Project of the Year Award recently from the Medicines for Malaria Venture (a project run by WHO), and apparently have made some real headway toward new treatments -- so much so that other malaria researchers have come to Seattle to work.
Still, though, a really bizarre (and unpleasant) individual. I feel bad for him in a lot of ways, but I really hated working for him.
Good idea, Miller.
PatioDog -- Well, he sounds like he had some good points. Smart to study in Seattle, as you may remember, we have loads of mosquitos here. I won't even ask if you miss them. <grin>
Yeah. Wish we had some out here...
It was a little odd going to work there, actually: most of the labs on my floor were full of people from India and Africa, which is a little different than what you usually see walking around Seattle.
Well, you know, I worked at the Suzzallo Library with the book catalogers... I saw first-hand the broad spectrum of workers that the university hires. I expect that the interest in malaria would spawn an even broader group. Surprised there wasn't anyone from So. America in your group.
There was one Brazilian woman.
Haha, PD. (No, not the Brazillian woman!) I was looking over this and realized that I mistook enzymologist for entomologist. Errrr, beeeg difference, right? Enzymology sounds like a terrifyingly new realm of study, surely important... surely hideously technical. I'm glad someone does that, just as I'm glad somebody wants to learn classical ballet. Also very glad it is not me. I'd rather be outside.
Not new, but the guy does nothing else: his entire life is dedicated to the study of a single enzyme. It's an age of specialization and all. I can't imagine having that sort of attention span.
I guess it is worth it... I wonder what his wife (or S.O.) thinks?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace