Can something be parallelly combined?

[NimoTh]

Hello there,

I am new to this forum so first a warm "Hello". So far there have been many good posts helping me solve problems.

So my question: How do I properly use parallel as an adverb. In particular, I want to express that something happens in parallel like this, "The 'focus' gesture can be parallelly combined with the 'rotate' gesture." Parallelly sounds odd but I don't see how to use "in parallel" here. Does someone have a better suggestion?

Thanks and greetings,
Martin

[konungursvia]

How about concurrently?

[NimoTh]

Yes, thanks for the suggestion, I found that on a thesaurus look-up but was not quite happy with it. I am talking about parallel versus sequential combination. If I use concurrent then what would the appropriate opposite? Does sequential still fit?

[konungursvia]

Yes it still does. I'd still go with "in parallel" or "in concert" or "at once."

[NimoTh]

Hm, ok. So that would be "The focus gesture can be combined in parallel with the rotate gesture," right?

Thank you for the suggestions. I'll try to get used to the last one.

[konungursvia]

Actually, "simultaneously combined with" would be another possibility.

[NimoTh]

Right, and again the question, is "sequentially combined with" still the best choice for the opposite? I guess so, because none of the synonyms (consecutively, serially, successively) sounds better. I will simply pick the pair of synonyms that sounds best.

[konungursvia]

Originally Posted by NimoTh

Right, and again the question, is "sequentially combined with" still the best choice for the opposite? I guess so, because none of the synonyms (consecutively, serially, successively) sounds better. I will simply pick the pair of synonyms that sounds best.

In all honesty I find parallel and serial to describe concrete situations, such as ports and connections.

If time is the dimension of interest, rather than space, I'd simply use "simultaneously" vs "sequentially" as you suggest in part. Parallelism is too geometric for questions of time like yours, in my view, as the reader might think of spatial analogs.

[NimoTh]

Ah, that is an interesting point. It makes me think of another hiccup. Is it actually sensible to talk of simultaneous or sequential combination? The act of combining something is not whats done simultaneously/sequentially. It sounds like two people combine something at the same time. Maybe "combine" is a bad choice altogether and instead the action that is actually performed should be used: "The focus gesture can be combined with the rotate gesture by drawing them simultaneously." I like that much better.

[konungursvia]

Originally Posted by NimoTh

Ah, that is an interesting point. It makes me think of another hiccup. Is it actually sensible to talk of simultaneous or sequential combination? The act of combining something is not whats done simultaneously/sequentially. It sounds like two people combine something at the same time. Maybe "combine" is a bad choice altogether and instead the action that is actually performed should be used: "The focus gesture can be combined with the rotate gesture by drawing them simultaneously." I like that much better.

That last one sounds excellent. Are you working on a new version of a video editor?