Why is this sentence’s grammar wrong?
What research should be done in the context of multiple genomes rather than in mapping or sequencing, in genome mapping experiments? The part is “polyphiloprogenitive, multiply
multiple genome projects” does not seem to follow the first part of the sentence at all. Is this grammar a mistake?
How can I differentiate myself from others?
The word polyphiloprogenitive overwhelms everything in its vicinity and brings readers to a stop, from which they may find it difficult to get restarted. Where do some high school students in these contexts find themselves failing to come to grips with the rest of the passage? Why do some have self-blame?
According to Merriam-Webster(sm) site, polyphiloprogenitive (which has been around since at least 1919) has a single definition: “extremely prolific” (not quoting all expoundants) As we have already seen, we knew the genome project would end if the project was not always completed. Without it, I’d be able to continue with the project and hope
that with it the project will succeed. The maps, or the sequences, are just the start of many lines of research, extremely prolific, multigene projects are started.
To my mind, the second sentence of the excerpt is very nearly gibberish—an especially unfortunate circumstance given that it appears in a column to take scientists to task for using “sloppy language” and for failing “more fully and precisely into the proper language of genetics.” ” To make the OP’s quote coherent, you would have to alter its back end extensively, along these
lines. But we knew from the outset that the genome project would never be complete. Here we continue to re-write the original genome and find it redundant to our original source code. If the sequences are just the start of many lines of research, the progeny of this extremely prolific source of research opportunities will quickly multiply. This means multiple subsidiary genome projects or results, which is more accessible than it is to these individuals.
Considering that this article was published on 15 February 2001, I thought that maybe the author’s wording got garbled at some point after print publication, as sometimes happens to online articles when the layout and source code is changed as part of a major site redesign (as must surely have occurred at Nature). When published in Wikipedia, it has appeared more than once in the 14 years since, and continues today. Is there any online proof that this happened to me? Am I missing an issue?
Does the OP’s question make sense as written in the quote? Does an emperor look naked to the naked eye?
