0

Is this sentence correct?

The accuracy of ranges values seems not crucial, as neither the number of bands is.

What I want to express is the fact that because the exact number of bands is not important, we don't have to care to calculate their borders accurately (its about signal processing, I hope the larger context is not needed to understand this particular sentence, if so, then let me know.)

My friend, who generally knows English better than me, says it is incorrect, there can't be as used this the sentence and there should be some attribute after is. But I'm not able to formulate it other way. I don't want to begin with the number of bands, because before I describe how I calculate the ranges, so I want them to appear in the first part of the sentence.

11
  • 1
    Why not say it this way: "The accuracy of the range values is not crucial, because the exact number of bands is not important"?
    – user21497
    Commented Nov 15, 2012 at 7:11
  • I think it's ok, but I find "because" a bit too informal for this case. Commented Nov 15, 2012 at 7:26
  • You can go archaic and formal: "... not crucial, for the exact number..." I don't think that because is informal, but that may be an idiosyncrasy of mine.
    – user21497
    Commented Nov 15, 2012 at 7:50
  • This would be nice for "Bible of Signal Processing" :) I hope there's something in between your two proposals. Commented Nov 15, 2012 at 7:54
  • 1
    The allegedly informal because seems like much less of a transgression than the rather awkwardly placed neither.
    – J.R.
    Commented Nov 15, 2012 at 9:11

1 Answer 1

1

The main problem with the sentence I see is:

The accuracy of ranges values seems not crucial, as neither the number of bands is.

If the number of bands merely doesn't seem to be crucial, first, it would be does, and then the effect-cause relation emphasized by "as" becomes dubious.

If the number of bands essentially is not crucial, then the neither is binding two negative clauses depending on different, non-synonymous verbs: "Joe is unhappy and neither does Kate eat any candies."

Besides, I think you're trying to emphasize formality over clarity. The sentence requires conscious effort to process, and as such the meaning is obscured. This is bad writing. It might be welcome if you were a lawyer or a politician, but it's definitely unwelcome in scientific or technical text, where conveying the information clearly is of superior importance to sounding profound or elaborate. Don't hesitate to use simple words where fancy ones obscure the meaning.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.