by or of?

I have written a sentence that my Canadian prof. has corrected it. I was wondering:

The current values for the ligament properties were directly taken from a publication [by: this was mine] [of: that was his correction] Pintar et al.

I would like to know why of is correct here. Any insight?

thanks,
Alireza

Welcome!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alireza_4

I have written a sentence that my Canadian prof. has corrected it. I was wondering:
The current values for the ligament properties were directly taken from a publication [by: this was mine] [of: that was his correction] Pintar et al.

I would like to know why of is correct here. I would use "by"; it sounds bettter to me.

I would say '....were taken directly from....".

thanks,
Alireza

---

2006

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alireza_4

I have written a sentence that my Canadian prof. has corrected it. I was wondering:

The current values for the ligament properties were directly taken from a publication [by: this was mine] [of: that was his correction] Pintar et al.

I would like to know why of is correct here. Any insight?

thanks,
Alireza

---

I'd suggest it is because Pintar et al. did not publish it. They only wrote it. It was probably published by the publisher of a technical journal.

Thanks Raymott for the quick rely. Does that mean if I replace the publication
by paper then I can use by:

...were directly taken from a paper [by] Pintar et al.
how about this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alireza_4

Thanks Raymott for the quick rely. Does that mean if I replace the publication
by paper then I can use by:

...were directly taken from a paper [by] Pintar et al.
how about this?

---

Yes. I think that is the situation, from what you've described.
Note that I don't necessarily agree with the professor about the usage; the original sounds OK to me. But I think this is the reason he has changed it.