Help with "using" vs. "by using"
James Park
(a)
I cooked the rice by using a rice cooker
I cooked the rice using a rice cooker.
(b)
The specimen was prepared by using John's procedure..
The specimen was prepared using John's procedure.
Please advise me which sentence is wrong or right with some explanation.
Thanks.
james
perchprism
"James Park" <jpar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a14ofa$obmvh$1...@ID-115609.news.dfncis.de...
> Could someone kindly help me with following examples?
>
> (a)
> I cooked the rice by using a rice cooker
> I cooked the rice using a rice cooker.
Both of these are OK; I have a slight preference for the second one. I'd
probably say "with" or "in," myself, though.
> (b)
> The specimen was prepared by using John's procedure..
> The specimen was prepared using John's procedure.
I'd say the first is wrong. "By" and "using" mean the same thing here, so
"by" is redundant (and unidiomatic alone, without "using"). The second one
is right.
The reason you can get away with "by using" in the first (a) one is that we
cook things *by* boiling or broiling or frying, etc. "To cook by X-ing" lets
"using" in. "I cooked the rice by using a rice cooker" is an unusual way of
putting it, but it is possible in the right context.
--
Perchprism
(southern New Jersey, near Philadelphia)
* Alison Moldenke*
James Park wrote:
>
> Could someone kindly help me with following examples?
>
> (a)
> I cooked the rice by using a rice cooker
> I cooked the rice using a rice cooker.
>
The first version is correct but wordy; "I cooked the rice in a rice
cooker" would be more concise. In the second, I would recast the
sentence to "Using a rice cooker, I cooked..."; there is a chance of
ambiguity otherwise, because the participle is closer to rice and could
be read as modifying rice. In this sentence, the meaning would probably
be clear enough, bu this constructions could lead to misreading in other
contexts.
> (b)
> The specimen was prepared by using John's procedure..
> The specimen was prepared using John's procedure.
>
In this case, the first sentence is correct. The "using" in the second
sentence is a dangling participle; there is no actor in the sentence
that could use anything. This is an extremely common error in the
scientific writing that I have spent nearly 20 years editing; the
construction is usually a result of the use of the passive voice, still
common in scientific writing. See "Scientific Style and Format: The CBE
Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers", 6th edition, p. 104.
A.Feerick
Mark Brader
> > The specimen was prepared by using John's procedure..
> > The specimen was prepared using John's procedure.
Alison Moldenke, or Feerick, writes:
> In this case, the first sentence is correct.
So it is. And the second one also.
> The "using" in the second sentence is a dangling participle; there
> is no actor in the sentence that could use anything.
If that would be an error, then there must be something wrong with
the analysis, because there's nothing wrong with the sentence. What
this really shows is that "using" is not a participle here. Can't
it be a preposition? Let's see, the meal was cooked in a wok, with
a wok, using a wok... Yep, they all work the same way. A preposition,
then. "Using John's procedure" is a adverbial prepositional phrase
(which modifies the whole sentence).
> This is an extremely common error in the scientific writing that
> I have spent nearly 20 years editing ...
Rather, it's a perfectly normal construction that Alison has apparently
spent 20 years editing out for no particular reason. Or maybe 20 years
ago it was an error; I don't know. But not today.
--
Mark Brader "You can do this in a number of ways.
Toronto IBM chose to do all of them...
m...@vex.net why do you find that funny?" --D. Taylor
My text in this article is in the public domain.
* Alison Moldenke*
of company--all those scientific editors who follow the manual that I
cited (though Mark clipped the citation). The manual was drawn up by
editors working for well-respected journals, publishers, and research
and medical organizations. The manual is the most recent edition, and 7
years old, not 20. Normal is not synonymous with correct.
Alison Feerick or (Moldenke)
Robert Lipton
Both sentences are correct, but each means somethign slightly different.
In general, the construction
x (performs operation Y) using Z
means that Z is part of the process, but not the entire process: the
most noteworthy part, since the sentence notes only it, but not the
entirety of it.
I cooked the rice using a rice cooker as opposed to my more usual
method of cooking it. First I soaked the rice in a pot, as usual, of
course, and later I drained it using a colander, of course, but this
time instead of using an ordinary aluminum pot. I also added the finely
chopped shallots .....
in contrast
x (performs operation Y) by using Z
implies that the entire operation is performed by using x. Basically,
you take the rice, you dump it in the rice cooker and you come back
later. That's it. Nothing else.
Bob
Robert Lieblich
Alison Moldenke wrote:
>
> Mark Broader wrote:
> >
> > James Park asks about:
> > > > The specimen was prepared by using John's procedure..
> > > > The specimen was prepared using John's procedure.
> >
> > Alison Moldenke, or Feerick, writes:
> >
> > > In this case, the first sentence is correct.
> >
> > So it is. And the second one also.
> >
> > > The "using" in the second sentence is a dangling participle; there
> >
> > If that would be an error, then there must be something wrong with
> > the analysis, because there's nothing wrong with the sentence. What
> > this really shows is that "using" is not a participle here. Can't
> > it be a preposition? Let's see, the meal was cooked in a wok, with
> > a wok, using a wok... Yep, they all work the same way. A preposition,
> > then. "Using John's procedure" is a adverbial prepositional phrase
> > (which modifies the whole sentence).
> >
> > > This is an extremely common error in the scientific writing that
> > > I have spent nearly 20 years editing ...
> >
> > Rather, it's a perfectly normal construction that Alison has apparently
> > spent 20 years editing out for no particular reason. Or maybe 20 years
> > ago it was an error; I don't know. But not today.
> If I've been editing it for "no particular reason", then I have plenty
> of company--all those scientific editors who follow the manual that I
> cited (though Mark clipped the citation). The manual was drawn up by
> editors working for well-respected journals, publishers, and research
> and medical organizations. The manual is the most recent edition, and 7
> years old, not 20. Normal is not synonymous with correct.
This is actually a very interesting dispute. If "using" is not a
preposition in the sentence under discussion (we'll get back to
that), then it could be a present participle, and as such it is no
dangler, because it modifies "prepared," which immediately precedes
it. You say that participles are adjectives and cannot modify
verbs? I call your attention to Good Ol' George Curme, Vol. 1,
Section 15 2 c, wherein we are informed that present participles,
with or without objects, can indicate manner. Examples given
include "He stood leaning against the gate" and "He was busy fixing
his fence." In the first, the participle modifies the verb, in the
second the adjective "busy." Well, that's how I see it.
But Alison apparently insists thata participle can only be
adjectival, hence must have a noun to modify. In Curme's examples
the sentences are in the active voice and the participles have nouns
to modify, so I don't see any dangling there even if there is a gap
between subject and modifier. Nor do I think Alison has been
making that argument. Rather, the sentence she disapproves is in
the passive voice, so there's no subject expressed, so the
participle "using" isn't modifying anything. (Snipped along the way
was this statement of hers: "there is no actor in the sentence that
could use anything.") Curme gives no example of a sentence in the
passive voice with a participle indicating manner, and I can't find
anything helpful elsewhere in his book, so I don't know what his
reaction would be.
My own opinion is contrary to Alison's. I'd allow "using" as a
participle of manner functioning adverbially, which makes the most
sense to me. I think Mark's designation of it as a preposition also
makes sense; English excels at taking a word that's thought of as
being in one part of speech and using it as a different one. I can
see the logic behind Alison's argument, but the sentence *sounds*
just fine, and for every technical argument against it there's at
least one equally good technical argument in its favor.
Anyway, the fact that some style guide for scientific writing bans a
usage that is standard in most brands of English is hardly a
surprise -- even if the reason given for the ban poses as a point of
grammar. I don't understand Alison to be claiming anything more
than that she enforces the ban within her own professional circle,
and I think she's entitled to do so. If I wrote for her (most
unlikely, given the state of my scientific knowledge), I'd probably
bitch a little and then suck it up. She or her employer would be
paying, and I'd rather make the sale.
But I don't agree with her.
--
Bob Lieblich
Who still trusts his ear, and his ear says the sentence is okay.
Franke
James Park wrote:
I see these kinds of sentences in the medical and other science papers that
I edit. They are direct translations from Chinese. Idiomatic English in
almost
every case I have encountered over the past 4 years would be (a) "in or
"with"
and (b) "according to" or "following" or "using".
The "by using" phrase is just verbose and should never be used -- ie at
least
I cannot think of an instance where it is required and cannot be replaced by
a better phrase.
Why? Because "by" implies an "agent", a "doer". In both cases above, the
agent is the speaker, not the instrument used to do the work described.
It is idiomatic to say "I went by train [or some other vehicle]" but not
*"by foot" (it should be "on foot"), but this "by" is not the agentive "by".
One can *say*, eg, "This rice was cooked by the rice cooker and the
other rice was cooked by a microwave oven", but in technical writing it
would have to be "in {a/the}{ rice cooker/microwave oven}"; even though
the rice was cooked by these machines, the true agent is still the person
who put the rice in the containers in which it was cooked in the rice
cooker and the microwave.
Franke
Mark Brader wrote:
> James Park asks about:
> > > The specimen was prepared by using John's procedure..
> > > The specimen was prepared using John's procedure.
>
> Alison Moldenke, or Feerick, writes:
>
> > In this case, the first sentence is correct.
>
> So it is. And the second one also.
>
> > The "using" in the second sentence is a dangling participle; there
> > is no actor in the sentence that could use anything.
>
> If that would be an error, then there must be something wrong with
> the analysis, because there's nothing wrong with the sentence. What
> this really shows is that "using" is not a participle here. Can't
> it be a preposition? Let's see, the meal was cooked in a wok, with
> a wok, using a wok... Yep, they all work the same way. A preposition,
> then. "Using John's procedure" is a adverbial prepositional phrase
> (which modifies the whole sentence).
I agree with you here. "using" functions as a preposition. There is
nothing grammatically wrong with the sentence, but I wouldn't be
using it stylistic reasons.
> > This is an extremely common error in the scientific writing that
> > I have spent nearly 20 years editing ...
The reason it is so common an error is that almost everyone uses
it because its meaning is clear.
> Rather, it's a perfectly normal construction that Alison has apparently
> spent 20 years editing out for no particular reason. Or maybe 20 years
> ago it was an error; I don't know. But not today.
It's never been anything more than a stylistic error by writers and an
error of perception by editors.
Franke
> If I've been editing it for "no particular reason", then I have plenty
> of company--all those scientific editors who follow the manual that I
> cited (though Mark clipped the citation). The manual was drawn up by
> editors working for well-respected journals, publishers, and research
> and medical organizations. The manual is the most recent edition, and 7
> years old, not 20. Normal is not synonymous with correct.
Yes, and here is the exact citation:
"That a participle is dangling may not be apparent when it is not at
the beginning of the sentence.
The county was surveyed using a Wehrtopf pocket altimeter.
[Who used the altimeter? Possible revision: 'The county
surveryor used a Wehrtopf pocket altimeter.']"
There is a serious problem with this analysis, though. As Mark Brader
points out, "using" here functions as a preposition and not as a participle.
It is true enough that if the sentence were written "Using a WPA, the
county was surveyed", it would appear to be one and would even function
as one as it seems to imply that the county was using the WPA instead of
the surveyor.
There is also a serious problem with the remedy suggested by the
Style Manual Committee; the "possible revision" is impossible
because it is incomplete and demonstrates to me that the editor
or committee member was asleep during the analysis and the
remedial session. A serious possible revision using this formulation
would have to read "The county surveryor used a Wehrtopf pocket
altimeter to survey the county". without the additional PP, the
sentence merely describes the country surveyor's hardware
preference and says nothing about with what instrument the
county was surveyed. I feel that I can take most of what the
CBE Manual says on faith because it contains many things
about which I am sufficiently ignorant (scientific abbreviations,
common and scientific names, and other technical matters
outside my field) and so require a style manual to guide my
choices. But I don't buy this particular analysis at all. It's just
wrong, as is the "possible revision". Faith is a substitute for
ignorance.
park
I am involved in medical science area. I have written many publication in
prestigious journals.
I feel that Frank's statement is quite excessive. From my expereince, I
agree with what Alison wrote in the earlier posting. In many journals, you
see the appearance of the words "by using". No question about it. In
general, we use lots of instruments/equipment to perform experiments.
Therefere, I thought that inclusion of the word "by" would be better or
clearer in that context.
In the past, whenever I circulate my draft manuscripts to my colleagues,
everybody has different opinion on "by using" and also "a and the" matters.
That's why I wish to settle this issue from English gurus in this newsgroup.
I wish to invite comments from biomedical scientists on this question.
Regards,
james
Franke
park wrote:
> Since I am not an English native speaker, it is silly argue against Frank.
> I am involved in medical science area. I have written many publication in
> prestigious journals.
>
> I feel that Frank's statement is quite excessive. From my expereince, I
Your comment here reminds me of the mid-30s Mainland Chinese student
that I was assigned to tutor 30 years ago. He demanded someone whose
English was at the highest level. He got me. At the little party someone had
to introduce him and his fellow PRC students to their tutors, he came over
and had a brief conversation with me. After a minute or two he told me
that he wanted to see if my English was good enough for me to be his
tutor. I told him that when he made his mind up about the level of my
English, he could give me a call. You do catch my drift, don't you, Mr
Park?
> agree with what Alison wrote in the earlier posting. In many journals, you
> see the appearance of the words "by using". No question about it. In
> general, we use lots of instruments/equipment to perform experiments.
> Therefere, I thought that inclusion of the word "by" would be better or
> clearer in that context.
"by using" is not the best way of saying it, but it's not the worst either.
> In the past, whenever I circulate my draft manuscripts to my colleagues,
> everybody has different opinion on "by using" and also "a and the" matters.
There are no hard and fast rules about these things. And every editor will
have different opinions about some usages. As you have already seen
in this discussion, there is no agreement among the English gurus here.
> That's why I wish to settle this issue from English gurus in this newsgroup.
>
> I wish to invite comments from biomedical scientists on this question.
Biomedical scientists are not the ones to ask. The publishers are the ones
to ask, but they will refer you to the copy editors, because they are the
ones who know the contents of the style manuals that the journals they
work for use.
I am a medical editor. Here in Taiwan, people like yourself -- medical
scientists of all types and at all levels -- ask me questions like this all the
time because they know that the editors and reviewers of the top English-
language medical journals never complain about the English in articles that
I revise. Almost all the articles that I have revised have been published.
Many have been praised by editors and reviewers for their clarity and
organization. And more and more often last year, journals have accepted
the articles without changing any of the language or asking for changes in
the content -- I *edit*, I don't just proofread or check grammar. You may
think my standards are excessive, but the editors of medical journals don't.
And the medical scientists I work for don't either. Almost all of them tell
me that the previous editors they've had were incapable of revising a
manuscript that did not come back with complaints about spelling errors,
typos, grammatical erros, and usage errors.They appreciate my excessiveness.
I also know that many European journals not published in England have
very low editorial standards. All they will insist on -- if anything -- is that
their format be followed and that British or Amrican spelling be used.
Their copy editors don't seem to be native English speakers and there are
often astounding errors that get into print. One journal returned the galley
proofs of an article I'd revised and somehow had managed to merge the
original submission and my revision in such a way that the second half
of the Discussion made no sense at all. It took three letters to them
to get their copy editor to figure out what was going on, and I had to
revise the HTML version that they wanted to publish on the Web
so that they would not publish the wrong version.
park
You sound like one of those who loves to do racial profiling for your own
ego trip. BTW, I am not a Chinese.
Take care you ass****.
james
"Franke" <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote in message
news:3C374381...@seed.net.tw...
Douwe Egbert
"James Park" wrote:
> Could someone kindly help me with following examples?
>
> (a)
> I cooked the rice by using a rice cooker
> I cooked the rice using a rice cooker.
"I cooked the rice in a rice cooker" is preferable to both
because it is simpler and more direct.
>
> (b)
> The specimen was prepared by using John's procedure..
> The specimen was prepared using John's procedure.
Both are possible, but both can be improved. They are
weak constructions because "using" appears to have nothing
in the sentence to modify. Some would consider it a dangling
modifier. The following would be an improvement:
"We used John's procedure to prepare the specimen."
-- or --
"We prepared the specimen using John's procedure."
(Substitute another agent for "we" if appropriate.)
--
D E
Franke
park wrote:
> Franke,
>
> You sound like one of those who loves to do racial profiling for your own
> ego trip.
Would you care to "elucidate" (as so many of the medical people are
wont to say)? "Racial profiling"? I think you are simply offended because
you misunderstood my story and thought that I thought you were Chinese,
an insult for you, it seems.
> BTW, I am not a Chinese.
> Take care you ass****.
No, I know that you are not a Chinese. I've never met a Chinese
named "Park", only Koreans. I was merely commenting on the
arrogance of a non-native speaker of English who was in need
of a tutor trying to evaluate the level of the English of the linguistics
graduate student selected for him by the Linguistics Department.
Your audacious remark about my "excessive" remark, despite
the initial qualification that it would be stupid to argue with me
because you are not a native speaker, sounded just like that
PRC schmuck's. And even though you are not a Chinese, you
sound just like his twin brother.