Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: plural noun following "such"

Hi,
I'd like to know if the following sentence is correct (in a technical
article).
"...we found these aspects. We aim at understanding the impact of SUCH
aspects in the real world."
Thanks in advance,
RM


sounds ok to me. "aim to understand", maybe, though

 aspects in the real world."
The use of 'such' is correct, but the use of 'aspects' is odd. 


I should not have commented that the use of 'aspects' is odd. It's perfectly 
fine to use it, it just would not be a word that I would chose to use given 
the limited context offered in the example. 


My dictionary agrees with you.
"To be aimed at" and "to aim for" should be correct as well.
Kiuhnm

 "To be aimed at" and "to aim for" should be correct as well.
I don't think "aim at understanding" is wrong. "Our objective here is
to aim at understanding better the world which surrounds us." ...
seems
ok to me.

):

I would leave out "to aim at" and say, rather "Our objective is to understand 
better (or "to better understand" Yes, split infinitives are often better 
than the non-split versions) since the goal isn't to aim at, but rather to 
understand.
And I would say "...the world *that* surrounds us." but that's minor.
-- 
Joe/Joey da New York

 
You can't say "this aspects" because "this" is singular and "aspects" is 
plural.
Such is better in this context because it refers to aspects similar to -- but 
not limited to -- "these aspects."


 And I would say "...the world *that* surrounds us." but that's minor.
There seems to be a UK/US difference about which and that. I'm sure
it's come up before and anyone who needs to know can go looking for it.

 better
In this case, I have to agree with you. I just wanted to invent an
example
with "aim at understanding". I'm sure there are better ones. I suspect
I still have at least a mild preference for "aim to understand".

 suspect I still have at least a mild preference for "aim to understand".
I think that we'd all agree that "we aim" whether it's "to" or "at" is not
the best choice of phrasing in a formal document. It sounds more informal,
or like marketing-speak than the precise language we expect in technical or
academic presentations. However, if we make corrections in this newsgroup
based on our stylistic language preferences without identifying the
preferential reasons for those changes, and don't permit those learning
English to use acceptable language in the place of preferred language, I
fear that we may impede the progress of some learners.
I don't mean this as a criticism of you or your posts. I am just taking this
opportunity to comment about the considerations I try to keep in mind when
posting corrections on this newsgroup. An example of going too far would be
my post in which I criticized the use of 'aspects'.

 the best choice of phrasing in a formal document.
I have to wonder. I've seen a lot of academic papers which are
frustratingly
tentative about everything. "of course, no definitive conclusion can
be reached
and... " and so on. Show some backbone, guys! To hear some of these
people say they "aimed to understand" wouldn't surprise me at all.

 the limited context offered in the example.
So, with regard to the subject of the post, I guess I'm safe with
using it (therefore a "thanks" is
Speaking of the use of the word "(critical) aspects", in this
particular case we could translate it with
    "critical parts of a machine's hardware and software"
or
    "critical issues of etc..."
or (but I wouldn't choose this last one)
    "drawbacks ... "