# measured object or measuring object



## Kay Champs

How do you refer to an object that is measured by measuring instruments. Will it be a "measured object" or a "measuring object" ?   

I googled and found that German people seem to use "measuring object" a lot (maybe by analogy to "zu messend" ?).  But I wonder if this is correct.  

An "object to be measured" would be too awkward because I'm going to use the term a number of times in a translation. So it has to be brief. Once this passive expression is learned, it will come in handy in other cases involving other verbs.


----------



## Nunty

Could you give us an example or two of sentences in which you want to use the term?


----------



## Kay Champs

Thank you, Nunty, for your response.

I could provide following examples.

1. At least a part of the surface on which the measuring object 25 is placed needs to be  ...

2. Locating the measuring object 25 in a specified position with a high accuracy requires ....

p.s. I also considered "object of measurement" but this could also mean "objectives or purposes" Anyway, I would appreciate your advice.


----------



## Copyright

How about *measurable object*? This would include most things on earth and in  outer space.

A _measured object_ is one that has already been measured. 
A _measurable object_ is one which _can _be measured.


----------



## Nunty

Is there a reason you can't just say "the object"?


----------



## tʃæz

I agree with Copyright, but to clarify "measuring object" - that would refer to an object which is used to measure. A "measuring object" may be something such as a meter stick or a ruler, but a measured object would be like, say, a book to which you measured the length of with a ruler.


----------



## Kay Champs

From tsaez's explanation, I learned what "measuring object" and "measured object" mean respectively. That's also what long I wanted to know.  

This reminds me of a problem of use of past participles "broken glass" and "spoken laguage."  While "broken glass" is glass that has been broken, a spoken language is not a language that has been spoken but is spoken.  If a "measured object" can be taken as an object that is measured or is to be measured like a "spoken language," then I can use a measured object.  

Can anyone confirm this ?


----------



## Copyright

Kay Champs said:


> If a "measured object" can be taken as an object that is measured or is to be measured like a "spoken language," then I can use a measured object.
> 
> Can anyone confirm this ?



As I mentioned in post 4: 
A _measured object_ is one that has already been measured.

You cannot use it for an object that is _to be measured_ in the future.


----------



## Kay Champs

Copyright, thank you for your correction.  
Now I'm back to where I was without an expression that I find fits my purpose but with knowledge as to the difference betwen "measuring object" and "measured object"., which is a step forward.


----------



## Packard

Our Quality Control Manager uses similar phrases.

*The measured dimensions...*

Those dimensions that had been measured and documented in the quality control process.


I could see where he would use *measured object* to describe an object that had been measured and documented.

But I never heard him use _*measuring object *or* measuring dimensions*_ and they sound completely wrong to me.


----------



## Copyright

Kay Champs said:


> Copyright, thank you for your correction.
> Now I'm back to where I was without an expression that I find fits my purpose but with knowledge as to the difference betwen "measuring object" and "measured object"., which is a step forward.



I take it you don't like _measurable object_ for some reason... granting you that I might not put that sticker on things myself, but we seem to be thinking inside a pretty tiny box here.


----------



## Packard

A *measurable object* (in my mind) is any object that is _capable_ of being measured.

A *measured object* (again in my mind) is an object that has _already been_ measured.

We come across dimensions that we call "unmeasurable" on a part.

For instance a dimension could be called out on a print as being from the tangent of one radius to the tangent of a second radius. But since it is realistically impossible to determine the exact position of a tangent we call that dimension "unmeasurable".  That is we do not have a finite point from which to measure.


----------



## tʃæz

Kay Champs said:


> Thank you, Nunty, for your response.
> 
> I could provide following examples.
> 
> 1. At least a part of the surface on which the measuring object 25 is placed needs to be  ...
> 
> 2. Locating the measuring object 25 in a specified position with a high accuracy requires ....
> 
> p.s. I also considered "object of measurement" but this could also mean "objectives or purposes" Anyway, I would appreciate your advice.



Kay, in your examples, you put "25" immediately after the term you are trying to find a more accurate phrasing for. Grammatically, this utterly confuses me. Does this mean that there is "measuring object 1," "measuring object 2," "measuring object 3".... all the way to 25 or more? Or can you please clarify what the "25" is used specifically for?


----------



## JulianStuart

How about the "test" object?  Measuring is like testing the dimensions of something - test in the meaning of determining its value on some scale (a synonym for this meaning in assay, and it overlaps very much with measure).  In my prior life we developed testing methods for drugs and we had "test sample" which was an unknown, and we had a "control sample" which was known and was used to confirm the test/measuring system was performing properly. We measured, for example, the concentration or purity of the sample. The documents created to describe these tests were worded with very precise directions, like the examples provided.  There is enormous breadth of precedent for this usage in the quality control world (which is depressingly large  )  Now since _our _samples were usually liquid, object would not have been appropriate.  But with the thing to be measured here being, well, an object, it makes a lot of sense to call it a "test object".  If there will be a lot of these, each with the same expected properties, then one might be testing representative samples of a production run.  Then, "test sample" _would_ be perfect.


----------



## tʃæz

Yes, a test sample is unknown, but test also means that you will run multiple, not necessarily successful, trials. A test is doing trials over and over to attempt to get a certain result, or to see what is resulting. I'm thinking that Kay, based on the words already used, has an idea of a likely outcome, or has a simple, direct way of finding out. Test isn't perfect. You don't have a book that needs to be measured, and then "test" its length. You simply measure it. You may have a gas which you use many different heat levels to "test" its combustion point.


----------



## JulianStuart

From the WR dictionary there are various distinct meanings, I'm  referring to #3, you describe #5.



> TEST
> Verb: 3             test
> *determine* the presence or *properties*  of (a substance)
> 
> Verb: 5              trial, trial run, test, tryout
> try something to find out about it;


 There is a large group of people out there who use the word test to mean measure some property of something.  I had my gold chain tested and they told me it was only 10 carat. I had my water tested recently.  They asked for large test samples and they found 30 ppm calcium in 3 of them.  I had my eyes "tested" and found they are still 20/20.  (I wish!)


> A test is doing trials over and over to attempt to get a certain result.


Not necessarily!


> test also means that you will run multiple, not necessarily successful,  trials.


Not in my tests   But perhaps in the #5 meaning.

Test may not always be a good synonym for measure when describing dimensions but you don't have your eyes measured


----------



## tʃæz

Kay Champs said:


> ...an object that is measured by measuring instruments.



This depends on context. If it has to do with something scientific, it should be "test object," or if past tense "tested object," but if it is non-scientific (or more mathematical) it should be "measurable." "Measurable object" would work in both cases, though.


----------



## JulianStuart

Unfortunately, English does not have a suffix for a verb X that means "(intended) to be Xed".  The X-able suffix means "capable of being Xed".


----------



## Kay Champs

While I was on the night side of the Earth, the discussion seems to have advanced from where I left it off, but in reply to tsaez's question as to the numeral 25, I would mention that description goes on by referring to only one object to be measured. So 24 could denote a ruler and 26 could refer to a controller, etc.  I just added this seemingly irrelevant numeral to preclude any suggestion some may give to simply sticking to an expression like "an object to be measured" since such a numeral would make such an expression awkward. (each component or any object mentioned in the description is actually accompanied with a reference numeral, though). 

I might add that I am talking about Japanese documents describing inventions for which patent protection is to be obtained. So they may be half scientific and half industrial.  But measurable would be hard to accept for Japanese clients with a limited flair for English.


----------



## Copyright

Kay Champs said:


> But measurable would be hard to accept for Japanese clients with a limited flair for English.



So they might know _measured _or _measuring _but not _measurable_? I'm not lobbying for any particular word but I always tell my Chinese clients that if they don't understand something in English -- which is available in both Chinese and English -- that they should read the Chinese version.

I always recommend writing properly in the language you've chosen (English in this case), rather than dumbing it down for non-native English speakers and taking a chance on confusing the English speakers in the process.


----------



## JulianStuart

Kay Champs said:


> While I was on the night side of the Earth, the discussion seems to have advanced from where I left it off, but in reply to tsaez's question as to the numeral 25, I would mention that description goes on by referring to only one object to be measured. So 24 could denote a ruler and 26 could refer to a controller, etc..



These numerals almost certainly refer to drawings in which physical objects, such as components and parts being described in the descriptions and claims, are identified by numbers.

It would help if you could tell us a little about the purpose of the invention or a summary of the patent claims, so we might be able to find a more suitable word than those already suggested, assuming none is satisfactory to this point.

Edit:  Perhaps there are two issues - 1) whether you can put "... object to be measured 25 ... " in the text of the description section like using "... controller 26 ...".  This seems totally acceptable to me.  2) In other parts of the document you are uncomfortable using the phrase "object to be measured" because it is too long. Have I understood correctly?


----------



## Kay Champs

JulianStuart, yes, you understand the issues under consideration correctly.  As for you request that I provide more info on the patent document as I do not disclose further thereon, for which I am sorry.  

Now, while I was doing translation on another case, a wording just occurred to me: how about a "measurement object" ? I'm curious to know how it sounds to English natives.


----------



## Copyright

*Measurement object *sounds like *measuring objects *-- both would be used to measure other things. To me.


----------



## Packard

*Measurement object* sounds odd.

We use these terms (USA):


*Measuring tools*

*Measuring instruments*



*Measuring tools* would include micrometers, verniers, rulers, etc. (All strictly mechanical in nature)

*Measuring instruments* would include optical comparators, Brinell Hardness testers, tensile testing equipment, etc.  (Mechanical and electronic in nature.)


----------



## Kay Champs

It is often the case that firstly you express things in general terms but then replace it with something more specific but this is not the case with descriptions related to patent because you do not want to restrict the scope covered by the right that is to be granted. That's part of the problem. 

So, it seems like "measurable XXX" is the only solution (though I could not use it for the reasons I mentioned).

Thank you all of you for trying to help me.


----------



## JulianStuart

Kay Champs said:


> It is often the case that firstly you express things in general terms but then replace it with something more specific but this is not the case with descriptions related to patent because you do not want to restrict the scope covered by the right that is to be granted. That's part of the problem.
> 
> So, it seems like "measurable XXX" is the only solution (though I could not use it for the reasons I mentioned).
> 
> Thank you all of you for trying to help me.



I personally still find that unsatisfactory because, in principle,_ nearly everything_ is measurable and it is therefore quite vague, particularly for patent language   It is common to use a cumbersome (but ideal) phrase at the first mention and then define, for the purposes of the document, a shorter phrase for use at subsequent instances.  Thus "the object that is to be measured (hereafter referred to as XYZ) and include XYZ in the section that lists abbreviations, definitions etc.  Test object could fit there and there is much precedent for it.  But you know your constraints better than we do.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Copyright said:


> As I mentioned in post 4:
> A _measured object_ is one that has already been measured.
> 
> You cannot use it for an object that is _to be measured_ in the future.


 
But you can use it also for an object that is being measured.


----------



## Copyright

Originally Posted by *Copyright* 
A _measured object_ is one that has already been measured.
You cannot use it for an object that is _to be measured_ in the  future. 


Ben Jamin said:


> But you can use it also for an object that is being measured.



I think that would be an object that I'm *measuring*, so I'm not inclined to agree with you, but it doesn't really matter: it doesn't help Kay.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Copyright said:


> Originally Posted by *Copyright*
> A _measured object_ is one that has already been measured.
> You cannot use it for an object that is _to be measured_ in the future.
> 
> 
> I think that would be an object that I'm *measuring*, so I'm not inclined to agree with you, but it doesn't really matter: it doesn't help Kay.


 
Could you elaborate why you do not agree? What is the difference:
measured object = an object that I'm *measuring,* but not the one that is being measured?


----------



## kalamazoo

It seems to me the only correct expressions are "measurable object" (I am not sure I saw what the objection to this was)and "object to be measured" which is the most accurate.  If you don't want to repeat "object to be measured" you could put something like "the object to be measured, hereafter referred as "the object") and then just call it "the object" from that point forward. Or use an abbreviation (the OTBM or something.)


----------



## Ben Jamin

kalamazoo said:


> It seems to me the only correct expressions are "measurable object" (I am not sure I saw what the objection to this was)and "object to be measured" which is the most accurate. If you don't want to repeat "object to be measured" you could put something like "the object to be measured, hereafter referred as "the object") and then just call it "the object" from that point forward. Or use an abbreviation (the OTBM or something.)


I always thought measurable is something somebody is able to measure.


----------



## kalamazoo

I was assuming that if you are described some measuring instrument, it would be assumed that the measurable object would be anything you could measure with the instrument in question.  So I think it would be understandable in that context,but again "object to be measured" is the most accurate.


----------



## Copyright

kalamazoo said:


> It seems to me the only correct expressions are "*measurable object*" (I am not sure I saw what the objection to this was) and "*object to be measured*" which is the most accurate.



The objection was in post 19: 
I might add that I am talking about Japanese documents describing  inventions for which patent protection is to be obtained. So they may be  half scientific and half industrial.  But *measurable *would be hard to  accept for Japanese clients with a limited flair for English.  		

I would have thought that the word "able" was in the vocabularies of people who understood "measuring" and "measured" -- and therefore could be easily described -- but it's not my decision to make. 



> If you don't want to repeat "object to be measured" you could put something like "the object to be measured, hereafter referred as "the object") and then just call it "the object" from that point forward.



This sounds like an excellent suggestion.


----------



## Copyright

Ben Jamin said:


> I always thought measurable is something somebody is able to measure.



It is and I suggested it in post 4, but Kay doesn't want it for the reasons in the post above (or in post 19).


----------



## Copyright

You said: But you can use it *[measured object]* also for an object that is being measured.         And I disagreed. 



Ben Jamin said:


> Could you elaborate why you do not agree? What is the difference:
> measured object = an object that I'm *measuring,* but not the one that is being measured?



*A measured object* *is not an object that I am measuring*. 

A *measured object *is one that has already been measured -- as recently as one microsecond, perhaps, but the measuring is done. 

You need a word that describes the present or continuous for something you're in the middle of doing... as you have with "an object that *I'm* measuring" or "an object that *I am* measuring." Which is why I switched from adjectives (measured, measurable) to verbs (which I am measuring) -- because as soon as you use *measuring *as an adjective, you have a different object: a *measuring object* is an object you use for measuring, as we've discussed in this thread.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Copyright said:


> You said: But you can use it *[measured object]* also for an object that is being measured. And I disagreed.
> 
> 
> 
> *A measured object* *is not an object that I am measuring*.
> 
> A *measured object *is one that has already been measured -- as recently as one microsecond, perhaps, but the measuring is done.
> 
> You need a word that describes the present or continuous for something you're in the middle of doing... as you have with "an object that *I'm* measuring" or "an object that *I am* measuring." Which is why I switched from adjectives (measured, measurable) to verbs (which I am measuring) -- because as soon as you use *measuring *as an adjective, you have a different object: a *measuring object* is an object you use for measuring, as we've discussed in this thread.


 
I am even more confused now. 
You wrote "I think that would be an object that I'm *measuring" *And now you write: *A measured object* *is not an object that I am measuring*. 
Sorry for being obtuse, but it's not deliberate.


----------



## Copyright

In my view:
measurable object = an object that can be measured.
measured object = an object that has been measure.
measuring object = an object you use to measure.

Perhaps it's semantics and we just have different views of your statement "...you can use *[measured object]* also  for an object that is *being *measured."

I read your "*being*" as "in the process of." And I couldn't think of any adjective for "object" that would describe that state -- certainly not *measured object* because the process of measuring is over and we have arrived at a *measurement*. 

There is no term that I can think of for an object I'm measuring right now (that I am in the process of measuring)... so I would simply describe that state in words: "an object that I am measuring."


----------



## Packard

Ben Jamin said:


> Could you elaborate why you do not agree? What is the difference:
> measured object = an object that I'm *measuring,* but not the one that is being measured?


 

I think the problem is with parallel situations. 

For example a *measuring cup* is a cup that is used for measuring, and it is never (almost never) being measured itself.

A *testing machine* is a machine that does testing, and it never (almost never) is being tested itself.

(All equipment is calibrated so even measuring cups have to be measured at some point in its life, but that is not the purpose for the measuring cup.)


----------



## Ben Jamin

Copyright said:


> You said: But you can use it *[measured object]* also for an object that is being measured. And I disagreed.
> 
> 
> 
> *A measured object* *is not an object that I am measuring*.
> 
> A *measured object *is one that has already been measured -- as recently as one microsecond, perhaps, but the measuring is done.
> 
> You need a word that describes the present or continuous for something you're in the middle of doing... as you have with "an object that *I'm* measuring" or "an object that *I am* measuring." Which is why I switched from adjectives (measured, measurable) to verbs (which I am measuring) -- because as soon as you use *measuring *as an adjective, you have a different object: a *measuring object* is an object you use for measuring, as we've discussed in this thread.


 
I suddenly realized that the whole discussion, that I originally perceived as grammatical, is actually semantic. After a second thought I realized that there are many cases when an object undergoing a treatment can be described using a participle as an adjective, For example: "cultivated land" is a land that is under cultivation, not one where cultivation has been accomplished. A cultivanle land is something different. An inhabited city is one that is still inhabited, and not one where the "*process of inhabiting" has been terminated. Now I understand that copyright means that the process of measuring takes only a milisecond, and an object cannot be described as measured in the meaning of "undergoing the process of measurement" in the same way as a land can be cultivated land, because of the scarcity of time.

I wonder if you ever have worked with measuring professionally. I have. To measure an object is not often done in a second. Sometimes it takes hours. An object can have hundreds of dimensions to measure, or every measurement can require very extensive preparations of the object itself and/or the of the measuring equipment. In such a case, the process of measuring can also take quite a long time.


----------



## kalamazoo

If the measuring is in process, then I would describe it as "the object being measured".  If the measurming has been completed, then it would be the 'measured object."

"Cultivated" is a bad example, because it has several meanings,one which would mean that cultivation has been accomplished (e.g. a "cultivated person")


----------



## Kay Champs

How about a shooting target? 

And, now that an example of "cultivated land" being a land that is under cultivation has been brought up, that reminds me of an explanation someone has given about the criteria as to whether a past participle like spoken as in a "spoken language" and broken as in "broken glass" refer to an action that has been already done or that is in the process of being done.  That is, if the state of the noun modified by the past participle has been changed like broken glass as a result of the action referred to by the verb (the glass was not broken but it is now broken so the state has been changed), then the past participle refers to an action that has been done whereas if the state of the noun modified by the past participle has not been changed like spoken lanugage  (language is spoken but it is not changed by the action of speaking), then the past participle refers to an action that is repeated and hence could include an action to be done.

If this rule applies, then a "measured object" may mean an object to be measured in cases where the measuring is not of a kind that changes the state of the object as is most often the case.


----------



## kalamazoo

I don't think this is a real "rule" and to me a "measured object" almost has to refer to something that has already been measured.  This measurement could take place in the future. For example,I can say "Tomorrow please measure the object and then take the measured object to the storeroom" just like I could say "tomorrow please break the glass and then sweep up the broken glass."  But I wouldn't refer to a "measured object" as something that was scheduled to be measured, so I wouldn't say "Tomorrow please take the measured object to the technician so he can measure it."


----------



## JulianStuart

JulianStuart said:


> I personally still find that unsatisfactory because, in principle,_ nearly everything_ is measurable and it is therefore quite vague, particularly for patent language   It is common to use a cumbersome (but ideal) phrase at the first mention and then define, for the purposes of the document, a shorter phrase for use at subsequent instances.  Thus "the object that is to be measured (hereafter referred to as XYZ) and include XYZ in the section that lists abbreviations, definitions etc.  Test object could fit there and there is much precedent for it.  But you know your constraints better than we do.





kalamazoo said:


> It seems to me the only correct expressions are "measurable object" (I am not sure I saw what the objection to this was)and "object to be measured" which is the most accurate.  If you don't want to repeat "object to be measured" you could put something like "the object to be measured, hereafter referred as "the object") and then just call it "the object" from that point forward. Or use an abbreviation (the OTBM or something.)



We have yet to hear why this proposal is inadequate for Kay's purposes.

_Cultivated land_ and _spoken language_ both use adjectives to describe something that covers all three of the following "has been, is being and will be" spoken or cultivated.  I don't see any parallel at all with broken glass (do people really keep breaking it into smaller pieces??)


----------



## Kay Champs

I cited an example of broken glass as an antithesis to cases where the action described is repeated as spoken language.  I admit, however, that "spoken,"  originally a past participle, may in this usage be regarded rather as adjective so may not serve as reference. "Broken," however, seems to be an adjective.

Suggestion that a simpler replacement be used after giving a definition is a good way to solve the problem at issue but Japanese clients in general would not prefer such an initiative on the part of a translator and as such I do not dare adopt that approach. But I know that this approach should be the best.

p.s. While this may be a trifle off the big theme under discussion, I found not a few cases where "the object (numeral) to be measured" is repeatedly used throughout the patent description in lieu of  "the object to be measured (numeral)."  The former seems to be better to me.


----------



## JulianStuart

Kay Champs said:


> p.s. While this may be a trifle off the big theme under discussion, I found not a few cases where "the object (numeral) to be measured" is repeatedly used throughout the patent description in lieu of  "the object to be measured (numeral)."  The former seems to be better to me.



I agree the former is better (there is no ambiguity relating the object to the numeral in the drawings) and keeping the same, accurate description throughout is also unambiguous and needs no (hereafter referred to ...) to be introduced simply for the translation.


----------



## Kay Champs

So nice of you Julian to give me a prompt confirmation.


----------



## JulianStuart

I am happy to provide a confirmation 47 to the to-be-solved conundrum 1.


----------



## djmc

One may say of something that is measured something like 'The object measured was a torque excavated in the Dublin region'. However one may say of a theodolite if someone said 'What's that object' 'Its a measuring object, it's used for establishing levels and distances.'


----------



## ewie

*Moderator note:* I've removed three posts above as they were in danger of leading the thread into far-removed territory.  Please try and stick _only_ to Kay's original conundrum.

*Non-moderator stuff:* I'd like to suggest _measurement target_


----------



## Kay Champs

"Measuring target" suggested by ewie seems to be a good alternative.
I'm beginning to feel that this option might work but would wait for others' confirmation or objection. Can one use it in formal descriptions ? etc. 

I found two examples, similar in structure, using "observing target" as follows. If observing target is usable, why not measuring target.
1) "Imaging requires highly accurate pointing of the telescopes. The observing target must be located well within the main beam -- that is, the aim must be off by no more than a tenth of the beam width."

2) "Mars has always been an exciting observing target for many reasons."


----------



## Copyright

Kay Champs said:


> "Measuring target" suggested by ewie seems to be a good alternative.



Just to note that ewie's suggestion was "measurement target."


----------



## JulianStuart

"the object (numeral) to be measured"
"Measuring target"

I can't help you choose here because I don't have the rest of the patent to see if the latter is appropriate.

PS No matter what precedent you have found, "Observing target" sounds strange to me


----------



## kalamazoo

Observing target also sounds strange to me and it may be a technical term in astronomy. In any case, I don't think you can extrapolate from "observing target"to get to "measuring target." Googling almost always shows "measuring target" as two adjectives (e.g. "measuring target levels") not as a noun.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Kay Champs said:


> I cited an example of broken glass as an antithesis to cases where the action described is repeated as spoken language. I admit, however, that "spoken," originally a past participle, may in this usage be regarded rather as adjective so may not serve as reference. "Broken," however, seems to be an adjective.
> 
> Suggestion that a simpler replacement be used after giving a definition is a good way to solve the problem at issue but Japanese clients in general would not prefer such an initiative on the part of a translator and as such I do not dare adopt that approach. But I know that this approach should be the best.
> 
> p.s. While this may be a trifle off the big theme under discussion, I found not a few cases where "the object (numeral) to be measured" is repeatedly used throughout the patent description in lieu of "the object to be measured (numeral)." The former seems to be better to me.


 I do not know if this reply can be considered as off topic, but your post has a very good point of view at the problem. Your classification of English verbs actually divides them into perfective and imperfective, which is, I presume, little known by native English speakers themselves. In my opinion, there must also be a group of verbs in the middle, belonging to both classes, that is ones that can be perfective or imperfective, depending on usage.


----------



## Kay Champs

I'm glad Ben considers my point of view that way.  I wish someone could give a clear-cut explanation on that.  

       *Reading my own post cited by Ben, I noticed a mistake in it every one of you will have already noticed. I correct it either way. That is, <"Broken," however, seems to be an adjective> should have read <"Broken," however, seems to be a verb in the form of past participle used like an adjective> or to that effect.

OK, I note that "observing target" sounds strange.  As for the sources of the references I cited, they seem to be scientific magazines or like literature. But I admit the occurrences of the wording "observing target" may be moderate on a global basis.   

So we are again back where we were a while ago. Now I'm inclined to think I have no choice but to opt for the object (XX) to be measured.


----------



## alexer_

My suggestion comes way too late to be useful to the original asker, but I'm hoping it'll help the next person who stumbles here through Google. (Like I did; Thanks, by the way - the discussion was very helpful)

It may depend on the exact context whether it'll work or not, but might I suggest "device under test (DUT)" or "unit under test (UUT)"? Both are terms that are actually used in some industries. You might even want to consider just following a similar format and using eg. "object under test" or "object under measurement".


----------



## Kay Champs

Thank you alexer. 

“Device under test” or “unit under test” seems to have two problems we should consider: 

First, when you say “under test,” does it not imply that the thing is already in the process of being tested. When you wish to say “Place the unit to be measured on the measuring device,” you have to say “place the unit under test on the measuring instrument. This sounds strange. You do not place something already in the process of being measured on a measuring instrument, As I said earlier on above, the expression occurs a number of times in a given document under various context, so you need to take into account such a context as well.

Secondly, “test” seems to encompass too wide a range of actions, one of which is measuring. (This problem may be a minor one when considering the point at issue)

These are my impressions. I wonder what other people have to say.


----------

