I’d kill for something like that.
Nothing stands out for me except the mind numbing drudgery of fractured language and too many glimpses into incredibly impoverished minds.
HG
My days are a lot more like:
“Pkd1L3/L3 mice can be born in normal way, and without anatomically abnormal. Shortened stature, enlarged paunch, and massive cysts-producing kidney have not been performed until giving birth. Roughly speaking, the kidneys of Pkd1L3/L3 mice magnify speedy during its lifetime. At the same time, we utilize an indirect method to estimate the size of mice kidney through measure their belly perimeter during its lifetime. The situation of belly perimeter gaining is found unanimous to the enlargement of kidney volume. Among the entire life of Pkd1L3/L3 mice, we grossly examine and generally observe these enlarged and translucent kidneys of both sides of body. But these polycystic kidney symptoms have never been found in Pkd1L3/+ mice.”
becomes
“Pkd1L3/L3 mice were born normally, without anatomic abnormality. The characteristic ADPKD signs of shortened stature, large abdomen, and numerous massive cysts in the kidney were not evident before or at birth, though the kidneys of Pkd1L3/L3 mice subsequently enlarged very rapidly. Belly circumference was used as an indirect estimate of kidney size while the mouse was still alive, and there was good correlation between the two parameters at autopsy. All Pkd1L3/L3 mice showed grossly enlarged kidneys as translucent areas of both sides of the body.”
not really much scope for ‘le double entendre’ , ‘le smut’ or ‘le funny’, so i have to make my own.
Those Pkd1L3/L3 mice are a menace I tell you. Living off the State, taking all our womenfolk … Good riddance I say
Yeah, but they’re GREAT at telling jokes. That counts for a LOT in my book.
[quote=“urodacus”]My days are a lot more like:
“Pkd1L3/L3 mice can be born in normal way, and without anatomically abnormal. Shortened stature, enlarged paunch, and massive cysts-producing kidney have not been performed until giving birth. Roughly speaking, the kidneys of Pkd1L3/L3 mice magnify speedy during its lifetime. At the same time, we utilize an indirect method to estimate the size of mice kidney through measure their belly perimeter during its lifetime. The situation of belly perimeter gaining is found unanimous to the enlargement of kidney volume. Among the entire life of Pkd1L3/L3 mice, we grossly examine and generally observe these enlarged and translucent kidneys of both sides of body. But these polycystic kidney symptoms have never been found in Pkd1L3/+ mice.”
becomes
“Pkd1L3/L3 mice were born normally, without anatomic abnormality. The characteristic ADPKD signs of shortened stature, large abdomen, and numerous massive cysts in the kidney were not evident before or at birth, though the kidneys of Pkd1L3/L3 mice subsequently enlarged very rapidly. Belly circumference was used as an indirect estimate of kidney size while the mouse was still alive, and there was good correlation between the two parameters at autopsy. All Pkd1L3/L3 mice showed grossly enlarged kidneys as translucent areas of both sides of the body.”
not really much scope for ‘le double entendre’ , ‘le smut’ or ‘le funny’, so I have to make my own.[/quote]
See, that’s why I can’t do scientific editing. Mine would just say: “So we took these wee pinkys, see, then we fucked 'em ALL the way up their tiny mouse arseholes. BIG time!”
Did you change it to “arse”?[/quote]
Don’t be so stupid. Chocolate starfish or rusty sheriff’s badge is the preferred nomenclature. Pooper in a pinch.[/quote]
“crusty puckerhole”, if I remember correctly.
Yeah, sorry, dude, but “surroundingly disposed” and “disposed rotatingly” are pretty standard patent language.
Yeah, sorry, dude, but “surroundingly disposed” and “disposed rotatingly” are pretty standard patent language.[/quote]
I know that from experience with dozens of patent documents. But they are not English. They’re idiotic phrases which are obscure. They are ungrammatical, and they fail to communicate effectively the intended meaning. I’m sufficiently familiar with patent language to let the established industry phrases pass, but when I look at the diagrams and I read the descriptions if the descriptions do not represent the diagrams then I will change the descriptions until they do.
Phrases such as ‘in substantially piggyback relation beneath’ and ‘disposed rotatingly drivably in the grinding receptacle’ do not constitute efficient communication.
Yeah, sorry, dude, but “surroundingly disposed” and “disposed rotatingly” are pretty standard patent language.[/quote]
I know that from experience with dozens of patent documents. But they are not English. They’re idiotic phrases which are obscure. They are ungrammatical, and they fail to communicate effectively the intended meaning. I’m sufficiently familiar with patent language to let the established industry phrases pass, but when I look at the diagrams and I read the descriptions if the descriptions do not represent the diagrams then I will change the descriptions until they do.
Phrases such as ‘in substantially piggyback relation beneath’ and ‘disposed rotatingly drivably in the grinding receptacle’ do not constitute efficient communication.[/quote]
Sorry, dude, but “surroundingly disposed” and “disposed rotatingly” are pretty standard patent language from English speaking countries too. I’m guessing you aren’t an engineer. Most engineers would immediately know what those phrases mean. They may not be “correct” English but wire/code heads" know what they mean.
And he discovers the secret as to why engineers never get laid.
Him to her: I’d like to dispose myself rotatingly and surroundingly on you.
[quote=“Tyc00n”]And he discovers the secret as to why engineers never get laid.
Him to her: I’d like to dispose myself rotatingly and surroundingly on you.[/quote]
Post of the year.
[quote=“rousseau”][quote=“Tyc00n”]And he discovers the secret as to why engineers never get laid.
Him to her: I’d like to dispose myself rotatingly and surroundingly on you.[/quote]
Post of the year.[/quote]
I know they are. As I said, ‘I know that from experience with dozens of patent documents’. But they aren’t English. They’re just some idiotic made up phrases which don’t communicate any more intelligently than ‘instartcue’, and 'also existed in the three dimensional space.
No I’m not an engineer, but I know what those phrases mean as a result of having to edit patent documents for months (plus the fact that my wife has worked as a paralegal for a patent, trademark and copyright attorney for four years). That doesn’t change the fact that they’re not proper English. Patent applications are supposed to communicate effectively and clearly. I did classics at university, but that doesn’t mean I should fill a patent application with classical Greek and Latin, even if I think the words sound really cute and describe the patent very well.
I spent a year and a half working at a wireless technology company in Neihu as a technical writer for the engineers, so I’m well aware of how incapable engineers are when it comes to communicating with normal people. English is annoying enough a language already without people deliberately butchering it further with ungrammatical jargon.
“disposed rotatingly” would earn the job a swift trip to the round filing cabinet, with a large “Do not return until you have learnt the error of your ways, and paid me double the previously agreed rate” attached to its forehead.
i often have a similar argument with scientists. “just because you see a particular expression used one way in many other articles, it does NOT mean that it is A) good English, B) acceptable phrasing or terminology, or C) going to pass my desk.” sheesh, that’s why you employ me.
Yup.
No, Mr. Manager, I don’t give a rat’s ass if you’ve seen “pass this on board” thousands of times in memos at your company. It’s still “post this on the bulletin board”.
[quote=“urodacus”]“disposed rotatingly” would earn the job a swift trip to the round filing cabinet, with a large “Do not return until you have learnt the error of your ways, and paid me double the previously agreed rate” attached to its forehead.
i often have a similar argument with scientists. “just because you see a particular expression used one way in many other articles, it does NOT mean that it is A) good English, B) acceptable phrasing or terminology, or C) going to pass my desk.” sheesh, that’s why you employ me.[/quote]
It’s because people like engineers and scientists don’t understand that the purpose of writing such a document is to communicate effectively with people outside their field of expertise.
I’ve recently been reading some material written (by Ted Knoy at the National Tsing Hua University), specifically to assist native Chinese technical writers and document editors produce coherent English documents. It’s very illuminating.
:bravo: Is this pick on engineers day?
Only the ones with bad English.
Oh, and the smelly ones, of course.
How many does that leave?
[quote=“urodacus”]Only the ones with bad English.
Oh, and the smelly ones, of course.
How many does that leave?
[/quote]
That’s rhetorical, isn’t it? Is there even such a thing as an erudite fragrant engineer?
[quote=“sandman”][quote=“urodacus”]Only the ones with bad English.
Oh, and the smelly ones, of course.
How many does that leave?
[/quote]
That’s rhetorical, isn’t it? Is there even such a thing as an erudite fragrant engineer?[/quote]