The usage of "being" and "in which"


Here, I am confused about how to make a meaningful sentence.

This is my idea. I want to say:

Another example for under-segmentation is shown in Fig 14. By this effect, nearby dormers have merged. Because of that, an edge referring to a dormer is lost.

So, I express my idea more concisely like this:

Another instance of being under-segmentation is illustrated in (Fig. 14) in which the nearby dormers have merged and it causes to lose a graph edge.

So, my questions are:

  • Am I correctly using the word being? I am always confused about when to use it.
  • Does in which refer to the idea by this effect?


Posted 2013-10-05T18:05:21.887

Reputation: 1 067

1being under-segmentation would become being under-segmented. I haven't heard by this effect and neither found anything relevant in Google, so I am assuming it is your personal usage. If I think about the literal meaning of it, in which isn't quite meaning the same; I am not claiming in which makes the sentence wrong, but it is not being used the same way By the effect was used. – Mistu4u – 2013-10-05T18:46:54.613

1it causes to lose a graph edge is ungrammatical: you must either convert to a noun phrase, *it causes loss of a graph edge*, or provide the verb lose with a subject, it causes [something] to lose a graph edge. – StoneyB on hiatus – 2013-10-05T20:53:35.730



In “Another instance of being under-segmentation is illustrated...” in your second quote, use of being isn't wrong; however, segmentation should be segmented, a past participle.

In the balance of the sentence (which, with a grammar fix, is “... in (Fig. 14) in which the nearby dormers have merged and caused loss of a graph edge”), in which primarily refers to Fig. 14, and secondarily to “Another instance”. I don't see any way to read it as referring to under-segmentation. Consider a revision like the following.

Fig. 14, where nearby dormers have merged, is another example of under-segmentation, with consequent loss of a graph edge.

James Waldby - jwpat7

Posted 2013-10-05T18:05:21.887

Reputation: 7 590

2As you say, Another instance of being undersegmented isn't wrong, but the construction with being is superfluous: Another instance of under-segmentation would be better. – StoneyB on hiatus – 2013-10-05T20:51:09.040