3

I was wondering about variations of the form

"[subject] has/is [property] [units]."

So far, I concluded that these are agreeable as well as:

"[subject] with [property] [units] is..."

"[subject] has a [property] of [units]."

"A [property]-[units] [subject] is..."

Below are some examples.

Initially, I was wondering about "field index." Since it's not common, I added "weight," which is supposed to be simple as a technical term. Unfortunately, since there's the verb "weigh", the weight examples sound awkward, where I suggested to use "mass" instead.

Most of example A is incorrect, but I'm leaving it as is not to put the discussion afterwards out of context.

In example B, I used the more common "vertex valence/degree," for which I could find expressions on google.

In example C, I took the simplest form and added different properties to give more examples for the pattern and for future searches.

Example A:

  1. It has weight of 2kg.
  2. It has 2kg weight. (Treating 2kg as an adjective.)
  3. It has field index of 2. (Same principle.)
  4. It has 2 field index.
  5. It has weight 2kg.
  6. It has field index 2.

Example B:

  1. The vertex (in a graph) has valence 2.
  2. The vertex has a valence 2.
  3. The vertex is 2-valence.
  4. A vertex with valence 2.
  5. A vertex of degree 2.
  6. The vertex has degree 2.
  7. A degree 2 vertex.
  8. A 2-degree vertex.

Example C:

  1. It is an update of rank 2.
  2. It is a rank-2 update.
  3. The vertex has defect (or Gaussian curvature) 90 degrees.
  4. A surface of genus 2.
Zohar Levi
  • 219
  • 1
  • 5
  • We just do not normally say: x has a weight of y. In English, we use the verb: X weighs Y. – Lambie Feb 05 '22 at 21:19
  • I updated the parenthetical comment for A.1. – Zohar Levi Feb 05 '22 at 21:26
  • You shouldn't say as in. You should just use the verb in those examples with weight. – Lambie Feb 05 '22 at 21:28
  • Okay, so as people said, these examples are wrong or sound weird. – Zohar Levi Feb 05 '22 at 21:37
  • This is a request for proofreading, and asks multiple questions in one, so it is way off-topic. I'm closing this to new answers. – gotube Feb 06 '22 at 08:11
  • @gotube, I disagree. I asked about variations for the pattern, "Subject has property with units", using various examples to make it concrete. There's nothing here related to proofreading. Please, open the question. – Zohar Levi Feb 06 '22 at 20:53
  • @ZoharLevi The wording of your question is a proofreading request: "What do you think about these examples." If you want to reword your question so it's clearly about one aspect of English, then I'll reopen it. Right now it's more than a dozen similar but separate proof-reading questions. On top of that, as Randomhead pointed out, none of your examples are good, so it doesn't look like you've done any work to find the answer on your own, which is another reason a question can be off-topic – gotube Feb 06 '22 at 21:46
  • @gotube, I edited the question. Embracingly, the first examples in A were my initial intuition, and the rest of A are just a sanity check that it's wrong. If you feel that I haven't done research, then please point me to a google reference so I learn for the future. – Zohar Levi Feb 07 '22 at 20:44
  • @ZoharLevi I think you mean: embarrassingly, don't you? :) – Lambie Feb 07 '22 at 22:50
  • A classic miss of an "auto-correct" result (by the author). – Zohar Levi Feb 08 '22 at 05:45

3 Answers3

3

None of your six examples are correct English.

Your examples 2, 4, 5, and 6 are unsalvageable. English does not work that way.

Your examples 1 and 3 would be grammatically correct if you inserted the indefinite article: "It has a weight of 2kg," "it has a field index of 2." (For weight you could also use the definite article and make it a comparison: "It has the weight of two one-kilo barbells.")

But those still sound unnatural and unidiomatic, at least for weight. Instead:

  • It weighs 2kg.
  • Its field index is 2.

"Field index" is not a common thing to talk about and so "It has a field index of 2" could work. It definitely sounds more technical and not quite as natural as describing "field index" as a property which the object possesses, but it could work. "It has a weight of 2kg" is not something a native speaker would ever say.

randomhead
  • 21,084
  • 1
  • 45
  • 52
  • I also wouldn't use weight like that, but I gave it as a comparable example. About your indefinite article suggestion. Aren't both weight and index in these cases uncountable? I added another example with valence. – Zohar Levi Feb 04 '22 at 09:34
  • 3
    Weight in this sense is uncountable, but when you are specifying it with of it requires an article: a weight of 2kg. – Colin Fine Feb 04 '22 at 10:58
  • "of" is cumbersome; what will it be without "of"? – Zohar Levi Feb 04 '22 at 17:17
  • 1
    Without "of" it will be just as ungrammatical as it was before. – randomhead Feb 04 '22 at 17:28
  • @ZoharLevi - Without of it would be It weighs 2kg, as indicated above. – EllieK Feb 04 '22 at 19:23
  • I'm assuming it's the same rule whether it's weight, mass, degree, field index, or valence. Does it mean that expressions on google, such as "vertex has valence two", are wrong? To confirm, I can say "a weight of 2kg," but "a 2kg weight" is wrong? – Zohar Levi Feb 04 '22 at 20:53
  • ""Field index" is not a common thing to talk about" Do you mean "It's not something that the general population commonly talks about" or "It's not something mathematicians commonly talk about"? If the latter, you are quite wrong. – Acccumulation Feb 04 '22 at 21:32
  • ""It has a weight of 2kg" is not something a native speaker would ever say." I can see a native speaker saying that, especially if it's a container that contains 2kg of weight rather than an object that has an intrinsic weight of 2kg. Certainly "It has a capacity of 2kg" is perfectly idiomatic. – Acccumulation Feb 04 '22 at 21:55
0

From Pondy.

None of Example A are acceptable to me. They should be

  1. It has a weight of 2kg.
  2. Its weight is 2kg
  3. It has a field index of 2.
  4. Its field index is 2
  5. It weighs 2kg.

Example B:

  1. The vertex (in a graph) has valence 2. OK
  2. The vertex has a valence 2. NO: should be The vertex has a valence of 2.
  3. The vertex is 2-valence. WEIRD
  4. A vertex with valence 2. OK
  5. A vertex of degree 2. OK
  6. The vertex has degree 2. OK
  7. A degree 2 vertex. WEIRD
  8. A 2-degree vertex. NO

Example C:

  1. It is an update of rank 2. OK
  2. It is a rank-2 update. NO. Shouldn't have the hyphen
Zohar Levi
  • 219
  • 1
  • 5
-1

It has weight of 2kg. Would be better with "a" before "weight", but acceptable.
It has 2kg weight. Would be better with "of" after "2kg", but still would be weird with that.
It has field index of 2. Same as A1, but less need for "a".
It has 2 field index. Sort of sounds like you're saying its field index has two different values. Would be improved, but still not great, but adding more words, such as "It has 2 as field index".

The vertex (in a graph) has valence 2. A bit awkward, but could be idiomatic for some communities (I'm used to the term "degree" rather than "valence").
The vertex has a valence 2. No, needs "of" after "valence".
The vertex is 2-valence. Works better as an adjective ("It is a 2-valence vertex") than a subject complement, but can be acceptable.
A vertex with valence 2. A bit awkward; at least with "degree", "has" or "of" is more common.
A vertex of degree 2. Normal graph theory phrasing.
The vertex has degree 2. Normal graph theory phrasing.
A degree 2 vertex. Normal graph theory phrasing, but hyphen between "degree" and "2" would improve readability.
2-degree vertex. I think it's pretty standard to put the number after the word "degree".

Acccumulation
  • 6,086
  • 10
  • 13
  • 1
    Your comments on the mistaken phrases would be easier to read if you just wrote them out. – Lambie Feb 05 '22 at 21:20
  • I don't know how to talk about vertices and valences, but the other suggestions are not acceptable English. Also, what @Lambie said: please write out the correct version so readers don't have to create the sentences in our heads. – gotube Feb 07 '22 at 22:48
  • @gotube, can you please be more specific: which suggestions aren't acceptable? – Zohar Levi Feb 08 '22 at 20:11