Hi Ed, > If we speak the way scientific articles are written... > > By Bernard Dixon, published in New Scientist, 11 April 1968, p.73, an > imaginary conversation at breakfast: > > "Daddy, I want cornflakes this morning. Must I have porridge?" > > "Yes. It has been suggested by mummy that, in view of the external coldness, > the eating of porridge by you will cause an increase in bodily temperature. > Furthermore, in regard to the already-mentioned temperature considerations, > your grandma-knitted gloves and wool-lining-hooded coat will have to be worn."
Translating into common language: "Yes. It's cold outside, having porridge will keep you warmer and please wear your gloves and wool coat." > > "May I have some sugar on my porridge?" > > "The absence of sugar in the relevant bowl has been noted by daddy at an > earlier moment. However, further supplies of this substance are now being > brought by mummy from the appropriate vessel that is present in the kitchen." > Translating into common language: "The sugar bowl was empty, but mommy had replenished it." If scientific articles are written as long winded and ambiguous as above examples, which could be easily made more concise and less ambiguous in common language (as suggested above), then I favor reporting scientific findings using common language. BTW, Ed, I have been hoping that F1 would return to Indy so that you guys would come to visit ;) Quyen > > > -- > Oh, suddenly throwing a giraffe into a volcano to make water is crazy? > Julian, King of Lemurs
