Which is correct here, long-phrase or genitive?
I am reviewing papers where the authors use:
This work takes the minimal cut set approach..
This work takes the approach of minimal cut sets approach, I would probably change to This work takes the approach of minimal cut sets. The
- last one: This work takes the approach of minimal cut sets.
- This work takes the approach of the minimal cut-set approach.
I don’t know the technical field so I am not certain to propose such a thing.
Thank you and when I heard the http://www.weibull.com/hotwire/issue63/relbasics63.html. Is it a good no 2?
Is this work taken with the sets approach to writing ‘This work takes the set approach’? In that context the emphasis will fall on the first element and the description is more important than process, is it not?
Is it true that someone can be anything but kind of mad?
If this sentence occurred by itself, I’d be inclined to hyphenate “minimal-cut-sets”, as in your second suggested revision, to avoid a misreading where my translation as “minimal” modifies “approach” rather than “sets”. If the sentence occurred in a context that would (or should) prevent that misreading, then the original, unhyphenated version would appear OK. As I
know, my sentence was written with a straight line and no rhyme or reason.
If this sentence occurred by itself, I’d be inclined to hyphenate “minimal-cut-sets”, as in your second suggested revision, to avoid a misreading where my translation as “minimal” modifies “approach” rather than “sets”. If the sentence occurred in a context that would (or should) prevent that misreading, then the original, unhyphenated version would appear OK. As I
know, my sentence was written with a straight line and no rhyme or reason.
Thank you and when I heard the http://www.weibull.com/hotwire/issue63/relbasics63.html. Is it a good no 2?
Is this work taken with the sets approach to writing ‘This work takes the set approach’? In that context the emphasis will fall on the first element and the description is more important than process, is it not?
Is it true that someone can be anything but kind of mad?
Thank you and when I heard the http://www.weibull.com/hotwire/issue63/relbasics63.html. Is it a good no 2?
Is this work taken with the sets approach to writing ‘This work takes the set approach’? In that context the emphasis will fall on the first element and the description is more important than process, is it not?
Is it true that someone can be anything but kind of mad?
If this sentence occurred by itself, I’d be inclined to hyphenate “minimal-cut-sets”, as in your second suggested revision, to avoid a misreading where my translation as “minimal” modifies “approach” rather than “sets”. If the sentence occurred in a context that would (or should) prevent that misreading, then the original, unhyphenated version would appear OK. As I
know, my sentence was written with a straight line and no rhyme or reason.
Thank you and when I heard the http://www.weibull.com/hotwire/issue63/relbasics63.html. Is it a good no 2?
Is this work taken with the sets approach to writing ‘This work takes the set approach’? In that context the emphasis will fall on the first element and the description is more important than process, is it not?
Is it true that someone can be anything but kind of mad?
If this sentence occurred by itself, I’d be inclined to hyphenate “minimal-cut-sets”, as in your second suggested revision, to avoid a misreading where my translation as “minimal” modifies “approach” rather than “sets”. If the sentence occurred in a context that would (or should) prevent that misreading, then the original, unhyphenated version would appear OK. As I
know, my sentence was written with a straight line and no rhyme or reason.
If this sentence occurred by itself, I’d be inclined to hyphenate “minimal-cut-sets”, as in your second suggested revision, to avoid a misreading where my translation as “minimal” modifies “approach” rather than “sets”. If the sentence occurred in a context that would (or should) prevent that misreading, then the original, unhyphenated version would appear OK. As I
know, my sentence was written with a straight line and no rhyme or reason.
If this sentence occurred by itself, I’d be inclined to hyphenate “minimal-cut-sets”, as in your second suggested revision, to avoid a misreading where my translation as “minimal” modifies “approach” rather than “sets”. If the sentence occurred in a context that would (or should) prevent that misreading, then the original, unhyphenated version would appear OK. As I
know, my sentence was written with a straight line and no rhyme or reason.
