Suject and verb

[jw1212]

Thank both tctepreslm and Robert to explain the function of "said" in patent description very clearly.

Here comes another puzzle. I read an abstract in an U.S. Patent as the following:

Abstract
A color REaD IOI system in which a light source illuminates the photoconductor so as to erase that photoconductor after the development of black toner but before exposure and development of the next color image.

Comment # 1:

So this abstract could be rewritten as

Abstract
A color REaD IOI system in which a light source illuminates the photoconductor so as to erase said photoconductor after the development of black toner but before exposure and development of the next color image.

Comment # 2:

I also have a problem with this abstract regarding basic grammars. The subject of the abstract is “ A color REaD IOI system”, following by an “in which” cause. But where is the verb of the subject? Without a verb, that is not even a complete sentence. However, I might miss something since those statements are examined by number of patent attorneys and patent examiners before being issued. I must miss something here!

P.S. That is referred to the U.S. Pat No 5,794,106

[Tdol]

Firstly, your rewrite is fine. Secondly, you are right to say that it isn't a correct sentence, but the objective is to describe exactly what the thing is, so patent attorneys will be concerned about the content accuracy rather than whether it is a sentence with a main verb.

[jw1212]

Dear Tdol,

Thank you for your explanation. However, I have an impression that lawyers are the group of professionals who speak and write the most accurate language to define, such as patent attorney, to prosecute, such as district attorney, to defense, such as criminal defense attorney. That is how they get trained and why they get pay well for.

But do they deserve privileges to violate the very basic grammar rule? I just wonder.

Thank you again!

JW1212

[Steven D]

Dear Tdol,

Thank you for your explanation. However, I have an impression that lawyers are the group of professionals who speak and write the most accurate language to define, such as patent attorney, to prosecute, such as district attorney, to defense, such as criminal defense attorney. That is how they get trained and why they get pay well for.

But do they deserve privileges to violate the very basic grammar rule? I just wonder.

Thank you again!

JW1212

No, they don't deserve that privilege, but they take it because they know they won't be criticized for it. And even if they are criticized for it, it won't matter. No one will care about it.

[jw1212]

Dear X Mod,

I see. But that is not right and not fair. No one should be above the law!

Anyway, that might belong to a social science / political science discussion and way beyond the elementary grammar scope.

Thank you for your comments!

JW1212

P.S. I should make “attorney” to “attorneys” or “ an attorney” in my last post, and “ …why they get paid” instead of “…why they get pay”. Am I right? (I often found mistakes after sending them out!)

[Steven D]

Dear X Mod,

I see. But that is not right and not fair. No one should be above the law!

Anyway, that might belong to a social science / political science discussion and way beyond the elementary grammar scope.

Thank you for your comments!

JW1212

P.S. I should make “attorney” to “attorneys” or “ an attorney” in my last post, and “ …why they get paid” instead of “…why they get pay”. Am I right? (I often found mistakes after sending them out!)

I see. But that is not right and not fair. No one should be above the law!

I agree. It's not fair. That's just the way it is though.

Anyway, that might belong to a social science / political science discussion and way beyond the elementary grammar scope.

I wouldn't look at that way. That's written language in paragraph form. One can do what one wants in writing for whatever the reason, but that doesn't mean that one's subject is beyond the scope of "elementary" grammar. I would say that "elementary" is not really suitable here. I wouldn't use it. We're just dealing with using complete sentence structure in formal written language.

P.S. I should make “attorney” to “attorneys” or “ an attorney” in my last post, and “ …why they get paid” instead of “…why they get pay”. Am I right? (I often found mistakes after sending them out!)

Both are correct. It just depends on how you want to say it.

1. They get pay. - In this sentence "pay" is a noun. It is what they get. They get their pay. They receive their pay.

2. They get paid. - This is a passive voice construction. In this sentence "paid" is a past participle. We can also say "They're paid." It's possible to use "get" instead of "be" for some passive constructions.

We don't know who pays them. We could make it an active voice sentence as well.

They get paid. - This means "someone pays them". We don't know who pays them, and that might not be important. Therefore, a passive construction with "get" makes sense here. - They get paid.

http://folk.uio.no/hhasselg/terms.html

Finally, the catenative get may be a marker of the passive voice (get married, get paid), thus serving the same function as the grammatical auxiliary be. Unlike auxiliaries, catenatives require do-insertion (or the support of another finite operator) in negative and interrogative sentences.


Here, we can see that "get" followed by a past participle, which is a passive construction, is very similar to "get" followed by an adjective.

In a very general way, we can say that "get" is used to show that "conditions change". - It's getting colder. - It gets dark. - They might get marrried.

You could take a look at this page. A good intermediate or advanced grammar book should have a section that shows "get+past participle" and "get+adjective" constructions.


http://www.english-zone.com/teach/get1a.html

[jw1212]

Dear X Mod,

Thank you very much for showing me the way to use "get" and "pay". It is very helpful!

Best regards,

JW1212

[Tdol]

It's OK to violate grammar rules in titles, subtitles, headings, etc. I 9imagine the ret of the text would have proper sentences.

[Casiopea]

No, they don't deserve that privilege, but they take it because they know they won't be criticized for it. And even if they are criticized for it, it won't matter. No one will care about it.

Ooh. You may want to look into how patents are actually writ(ten).

Your statement is unfounded, and misleading.

[Steven D]

Ooh. You may want to look into how patents are actually writ(ten).

Your statement is unfounded, and misleading.

So you're saying the language of patents allows for incomplete sentence structure? Is that it?


That's one sentence inside of a paragraph that does not have a verb? How do you figure that to be okay?