Take the 2-minute tour ×
Writers Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for authors, editors, reviewers, professional writers, and aspiring writers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I want to say couple of this within one sentence. so my sub sentences would be:

  1. We removed the vertical features from the classification process.
  2. The removal of vertical features enhances the discontinuations between planar objects and the earth. (the meaning is: in reality there are many planar object features, for e.g. building tops etc. by removing vertical objects like walls, the connection between roof tops and terrain can be avoided.)
  3. The main reason for erroneous classification of mentioned places is the merging of less oblique planes with nearby vegetation patches. (meaning: some places wrongly classified so that i am referring to that places)
  4. The nearby vegetation patches do not have considerable discontinuity with surrounding earth surface. (Meaning: some vegetation which do locate close to the mentioned objects make connection with terrain because vegetation normally has many branches from close to the terrain to top of the mentioned planar object surfaces, so that, indirectly such objects connect to the terrain.)

Then I put all together and construct the below sentence.

Although we removed the vertical features from the classification process as it enhances the discontinuations between planes and earth, the main reason for misleading the classification of mentioned places is the merging of less oblique planes with nearby vegetation of which doesn't have considerable discontinuity with surrounding earth surface.

I put all in the way although, part 1, part 2 pattern. in here, in both parts I am telling a fact and the reason for that fact. So, my question is how to shorten all stuff into one sentence as I am running out my space.

share|improve this question
    
Can you explain what “enhances the discontinuations between planes and the earth” means, and “misleading the classification of mentioned places”, and “doesn't have considerable discontinuity” ? (Please edit the explanation into the question) –  jwpat7 Nov 30 '12 at 21:43
    
@jwpat7: I am sorry, I put some explanations what I mean and also did small amendments because I missed some words in some places. thank for showing them. –  gnp Nov 30 '12 at 22:13
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Communicating complicated information can be done better using short sentences, not long ones. It also is easier to check short sentences for clarity and accuracy than to check long ones. Rather than trying to squeeze an explanation that should be a page or two long into a single sentence, aim at writing accurate short sentences.

In the above, I suggested using several short sentences rather than a single long sentence because the short sentences will communicate better. A second reason for using several sentences rather than one is that the presented information contains several different ideas. Treating separate ideas separately makes more sense than muddling them up together. The ideas include (1) vertical features like walls act as misleading connections between terrain and non-terrain (roofs, etc), therefore vertical features are not considered within the classification process; (2) vegetation obscures some oblique surfaces and leads to false connections between terrain and non-terrain.

You might try something along the lines of

We removed one important source of misleading connections between terrain and non-terrain by suppressing vertical features within the classification process. But vegetation with many branches not vertical often obscures or connects to oblique surfaces. The false connections due to vegetation now are the main cause of object misclassification.

Edit: A comment speaks of “ruining the point of splitting the sentences” by starting the next one with But. That may be so, because but is serving here much like a coordinating conjunction. To avoid the problem, consider the following arrangement, which besides avoiding but, slightly improves the parallelism in form of the two halves of the paragraph.

We removed one important source of misleading connections between terrain and non-terrain by suppressing vertical features within the classification process. False connections due to vegetation remain as the main cause of object misclassification. With many branches not vertical, vegetation often obscures or connects to oblique surfaces.

The comment also claims But at sentence-front “looks informal and out of place in a piece of technical writing”. That notion is echoed in wiktionary's Usage Notes for but:

Beginning a sentence with a coordinating conjunction such as but is considered incorrect by classical grammarians arguing that a coordinating conjunction at the start of a sentence has nothing to connect, but use of the word in this way is very common. It is, however, best to avoid beginning a sentence with but in formal writing. Combining sentences or using however, nevertheless, still, or though is appropriate for the formal style.

That is, some who subscribe to the idea that but cannot serve to start a formal sentence would have you believe that using a longer word like however, nevertheless, still, or though will make it all nice. I'm sure it's so, but also see Mark 9:24.

share|improve this answer
    
great, many thanks for very constructive comments and suggested sentences. –  gnp Dec 1 '12 at 0:06
    
I think you kind of ruined the point of splitting the sentences when you started the next one with "But". It looks informal and out of place in a piece of technical writing. –  Tannalein Dec 10 '12 at 10:56
    
@Tannalein, see edit. –  jwpat7 Dec 10 '12 at 17:09
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.