figure captions - the way to describe

4

When I am describing a figure caption in a technical paper, I think it should be concise. So what should I say if I am describing a poly line whose irregularities are preserved by the technique that we adopted. So, if I write:

  1. A poly line edge having preserved major irregularities
  2. A poly line edge with preserved major irregularities

What would be most appropriate?

gnp

Posted 2013-10-03T00:05:04.580

Reputation: 1 896

I'd say that they are equally appropriate – akkatracker – 2013-10-03T02:48:14.213

I think you could also move preserved to the end. – snailplane – 2013-10-03T09:29:06.180

@snailboat: that mean => A poly line edge "having" major irregularities "preserved" – gnp – 2013-10-03T13:17:55.387

1I'd prefer “with” or “that has”. “Having” sounds incorrect, probably due to tense mismatch with “preserved” (present progressive vs. simple past). – Tyler James Young – 2013-10-03T17:53:54.907

I'm aware that “preserved” is functioning as an adjective here, but if you'll forgive my non-technical description I think my point still stands. – Tyler James Young – 2013-10-03T18:18:45.067

Technique to preserve poly line irregularities – anish – 2013-10-04T07:24:36.150

@Tyler James Young: sound good. that mean, A poly line edge "that has (or with)" major irregularities "preserved" – gnp – 2013-10-04T10:03:11.583

Answers

1

They are both grammatically correct.

However, when reading (and writing) technical papers, I am a big proponent of clear and concise wording. #2 sounds better, with Tyler James Young's suggestion of moving "preserved" to the end:

A poly line edge with major irregularities preserved.

Why use two syllables (having) when you can use one (with)? This says exactly what you need to say with no syllables wasted.

AWT

Posted 2013-10-03T00:05:04.580

Reputation: 435