# EN: permettre de vérifier visuellement



## ratchou

Hi

I would like you to confirm whether the following sentence is correct:

"Square-root CD4 counts were transformed back into CD4 counts to improve its readability and _allow visually verifying that_ the curves were similar."

"its" refers to "the figure 1" previously cited.

Is it correct? or would it be better to write "allow verifying visually"

Regards


----------



## moustic

"allow [verb]+ing" is not the correct structure.
"allow to [verb] is not correct either.

"allow someone to [verb]" would work.
"allow [noun]" is possible = ... allow (a) visual verification ...  

But, personally, I think I'd modify the word order ... "and enable us to check, visually, that the curves were similar" - if you can use "us" here?


----------



## geostan

Square-root CD4 counts were transformed back into CD4 counts to improve *their *readability and _allow one to verify visually that the curves were similar._

OR, to visually verify.

_*allow visually verifying that*..._ is something I would never say.


----------



## ratchou

Yes we can, but is the reader also included in the "us"?
(note: it is for scientific publication)


----------



## ratchou

geostan said:


> Square-root CD4 counts were transformed back into CD4 counts to improve *their *readability and _allow one to verify visually that the curves were similar._
> 
> OR, to visually verify.
> 
> _*allow visually verifying that*..._ is something I would never say.




its refers to the picture, not the curves


----------



## geostan

ratchou said:


> its refers to the picture, not the curves



Since _*picture*_ was not part of the original, I assumed that the reference was to _*counts*_.


----------



## ratchou

No problem! Thanks for your help


----------



## Keith Bradford

Fais simple: "... to improve its readability and *reveal to the eye *that the curves were similar."


----------



## ratchou

Keith Bradford said:


> Fais simple: "... to improve its readability and *reveal to the eye *that the curves were similar."



En fait c'est une simple confirmation visuelle de ce qu'on sait déjà par des analyses statistiques. Est-ce que le mot "reveal" ne signifie pas ici que l'on découvre des choses que l'on ne savait pas avant d'avoir fait les courbes ?


----------



## lucas-sp

I would suggest that you (because this is science writing) avoid both the introduction of a subordinate clause with "one" as subject (because you don't want there to be subjects floating around) as well as Keith's poetic solution. I just think you've chosen the wrong nominalization of "verify." You don't want the gerund, you want a verbal noun like *verification*. Thus I want to go back to Moustic's suggestion way back at the beginning.

"Square-root CD4 counts were transformed back into CD4 counts to improve its readability and*to permit visual verification of the similarity between *the curves."


----------



## ratchou

Yes that sounds good!

My sentence was finally "Square-root CD4 counts were transformed back into CD4 counts to improve its readability and to allow visual verification of the similarity of the curves aspect." but "similarity between the curves" is quite more elegant!

Thanks to all


----------



## Keith Bradford

lucas-sp said:


> ...and *to permit visual verification of the similarity *between the curves."



Nice of you to call mine "poetic" but I was just trying to avoid phrases like that one.  Sorry, but they raise the hair on the back of my neck.  Cut through the verbiage; make it simple.  The general rule in scientific or any other writing is: the harder the thought, the more straightforward the language you should use to express it.


----------



## Pierre Simon

Good evening,

KB's principle of 'keep it simple' is a sound one.  With that in mind, I would have thought that, translated into plain English,  "_to permit visual verification of the similarity between the curves_" is "_to_ _show that the curves are similar_".


----------



## lucas-sp

Science writing. And, in fact, being as straightforward as possible, even.

We could "show" that the curves are similar mathematically, which the writers of the study have already done, presumably. The purpose of the transformation done on the parameters of the axes was to allow the reader to check visually - with a simple glance - that the similarity between the curves was self-evident. As such, "to show that the curves are similar" doesn't actually say, simply or otherwise, what the transformation was supposed to accomplish...

But again, science writing.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Lucas, you explain it so clearly with your "*with a simple glance*"  that I can't imagine why anyone - scientist or not - would expatiate in a more circumlocutionary manner to achieve an identical semantic outcome.

...Unless to show off .


----------

