This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site, while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Cookie settings
  1. KudoZ™ Top
  2. English
  3. Agriculture

method to increase/method of increasing

English translation: tool to start and method to increase

19:12 Dec 13, 2009
English language (monolingual) [PRO]
Science - Agriculture
English term or phrase: method to increase/method of increasing
I am editing a text written by a non-native speaker and have the difficult task of deciding when I really need to correct something and when I can let something stand, even if it is not phrased in the way that I would have put it myself.

In this case the writer has written "XYZ is a suitable method to increase soil fertility in organic farming systems." Now, I would have written "XYZ is a suitable method for increasing ...." "Method to increase" jars on my ears .... but is it actually wrong? If you were trying to edit with a fairly light touch, would you change it?

The same situation arises in other parts of the text (and indeed I encounter it frequently with non-native writers of English, presumably because the use of the gerund doesn't come terribly naturally to them). Here's another one: "AA and BB systems are well-known management tools to prevent soil erosion and conserve soil fertility." I would have said "tools for preventing ... and conserving..." But do I change it?
Armorel Young
Local time: 14:02
Selected answer:tool to start and method to increase
Explanation:
If you Google these two expressions in inverted commas just for English you get 36 and 50 million hits respectively. They are presumably not all from texts written by non-native speakers. I have chosen two absolutely randomly.

Although your examples also slightly jar on my native, but a tad old-fashioned and conservative if not to say pedantic ears, I think that in fact the English language is evolving here cas elsewhere and that the form with "to" is now also possible.

So I wouldn't actually change it, especially as it is not your text.
Selected response from:

British Diana
Germany
Local time: 15:02
Grading comment
Impossible to know who to award points to - everyone's thoughts were useful and valid. On the whole I agree that changes should be minimal, and that what you "let stand" isn't the same as what you like or approve of - Sheila hits the nail on the head!
3 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



SUMMARY OF ALL EXPLANATIONS PROVIDED
3 +5tool to start and method to increase
British Diana
4 +4methods of increasing
liz askew


Discussion entries: 1





  

Answers


55 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5 peer agreement (net): +5
tool to start and method to increase


Explanation:
If you Google these two expressions in inverted commas just for English you get 36 and 50 million hits respectively. They are presumably not all from texts written by non-native speakers. I have chosen two absolutely randomly.

Although your examples also slightly jar on my native, but a tad old-fashioned and conservative if not to say pedantic ears, I think that in fact the English language is evolving here cas elsewhere and that the form with "to" is now also possible.

So I wouldn't actually change it, especially as it is not your text.


    Reference: http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Information_Management/Ca...
    Reference: http://www.bepress.com/ucbbiostat/paper171/
British Diana
Germany
Local time: 15:02
Meets criteria
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 3
Grading comment
Impossible to know who to award points to - everyone's thoughts were useful and valid. On the whole I agree that changes should be minimal, and that what you "let stand" isn't the same as what you like or approve of - Sheila hits the nail on the head!

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Sheila Wilson: Agree with all you say. As an English teacher, I often have this type of problem. If I wince I leave it; if I shudder I change it - and of course if it alters the meaning I change it (cf stop to do vs stop doing)
1 hr
  -> Thanks, Sheila. I'm a teacher, too, and I know what you mean.
agree  Tina Vonhof (X): Don't change it unless it's definitely wrong.
3 hrs
  -> Thanks, Tina !
agree  Rolf Keiser
13 hrs
  -> Thanks, Goldcoaster !
agree  Liam Hamilton: I agree with Diana - I would always leave the text 'untouched'as long as it is comprehensible.
17 hrs
  -> Thanks, Liam !
agree  John Detre
1 day 2 hrs
  -> Thanks, John !
neutral  liz askew: In reply to your comment in the discussion box, it should be "acceptAble"./FWIW I am in favour of correct English. Aim high./Fine:)
1 day 21 hrs
  -> So am I, thanks for pointing my mistake out.
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

9 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +4
methods of increasing


Explanation:
I think you are right. If it jars on your ears or eyes, then you need to change it.

As for the linguistics, well I haven't got time to give you the low-down..

Good luck!

YOU are the native speakers, so go with your gut reaction:)

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 9 mins (2009-12-13 19:22:33 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

sorry
I meant


............the native speaker..............

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2009-12-13 22:54:06 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

OR

for increasing

as you thought yourself.

liz askew
United Kingdom
Local time: 14:02
Meets criteria
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Suzan Hamer: I agree 100%. If it doesn't sound right to you, an intelligent, educated native speaker, then I would change it to what does sound right. What sounds "right" to me is "tools for..." and either "of" or "for" for "suitable method".
12 mins
  -> Thank you very much!
agree  B D Finch: I'm in favour of conservatism here. I really don't think that Google should be allowed to dictate what is deemed correct grammar. Also, note that there can be lots of duplicates counted as ghits and many if not most refs. will not be UK English.
14 hrs
  -> My sentiments entirely. Why dumb-down?
agree  Vicky Nash: I frequently find this when editing non-native text and I change it - if you've been asked to make it read like native English then surely you should go with your gut!
15 hrs
  -> I agree with you! Thank you!
agree  Paula Vaz-Carreiro: I think it should be changed seeing that's what editing is for, and google is not for grammar. I'd go for "of/for increasing and "tools for preventing ... and conserving..." - 'conserve' sounds really weird to me :-|
23 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)



Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.

Return to KudoZ list

KudoZ™ translation help

The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.

See also:
ProZ.com term search
Search millions of term translations
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search