Thread: Order of words

I'm inclined towards the second variant, but just curious whether the first one is correct?

1. Walkways on the paths of possible personnel movements and slab paved areas adjacent to the checkpoints of the administration and utility building should be planned.

2. Walkways should be planned on the paths of possible personnel movements and slab paved areas adjacent to the checkpoints of the administration and utility building.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I'm inclined towards the second variant, but just curious whether the first one is correct?

1. Walkways on the paths of possible personnel movements and slab paved areas adjacent to the checkpoints of the administration and utility building should be planned.

2. Walkways should be planned on the paths of possible personnel movements and slab paved areas adjacent to the checkpoints of the administration and utility building.

Yes the second one. Splitting the sentence like in the first variant is OK usually, but not when it's long and complex like this example. Technically it's grammatically correct I think.

The meaning of the two actually differs slightly here. The first variant stresses the "should be planned part". The second stresses "on the paths...", i.e. where the paths should be built.

Originally Posted by TATY

Originally Posted by Ramil

I'm inclined towards the second variant, but just curious whether the first one is correct?

1. Walkways on the paths of possible personnel movements and slab paved areas adjacent to the checkpoints of the administration and utility building should be planned.

2. Walkways should be planned on the paths of possible personnel movements and slab paved areas adjacent to the checkpoints of the administration and utility building.

Yes the second one. Splitting the sentence like in the first variant is OK usually, but not when it's long and complex like this example. Technically it's grammatically correct I think.

The meaning of the two actually differs slightly here. The first variant stresses the "should be planned part". The second stresses "on the paths...", i.e. where the paths should be built.

Thanks, TATY, and which one you'd recommend if I need to put a stress on the 'should be planned' part and keep the readability of the sentence?

And, what if I add 'out' - "should be planned out"?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Originally Posted by TATY

Originally Posted by Ramil

I'm inclined towards the second variant, but just curious whether the first one is correct?

1. Walkways on the paths of possible personnel movements and slab paved areas adjacent to the checkpoints of the administration and utility building should be planned.

2. Walkways should be planned on the paths of possible personnel movements and slab paved areas adjacent to the checkpoints of the administration and utility building.

Yes the second one. Splitting the sentence like in the first variant is OK usually, but not when it's long and complex like this example. Technically it's grammatically correct I think.

The meaning of the two actually differs slightly here. The first variant stresses the "should be planned part". The second stresses "on the paths...", i.e. where the paths should be built.

Thanks, TATY, and which one you'd recommend if I need to put a stress on the 'should be planned' part and keep the readability of the sentence?

And, what if I add 'out' - "should be planned out"?

No 'out' here. I think the second variant sounds better, more because the first one is a bit too long to split the subject from the verb.

>2. Walkways should be planned on the paths of possible personnel movements and slab paved areas adjacent to the checkpoints of the administration and utility building.

This is not a sentence beyond "and", and the first part doesn't really make sense, I mean -- "possible personnel movements"? It is too much like Russian. Remember: English sentences are less verbose than Russian ones.

Outdoor planning [or: landscaping?] should include walkways for movement between buildings and slabbed or paved areas adjacent to ....
[I don't know the terms, but you get the idea.]

Walkways should be planned on the paths of possible personnel movement WITH slab paved areas adjacent to the checkpoints of the administration and utility building.

An American University planted grass, then paved the paths that developed.

Originally Posted by Ramil

2. Walkways should be planned on the paths of possible personnel movements with slab paved areas adjacent to the checkpoints of the administration and utility building.

Just to add to what the others have already said, a good rule of thumb for English is avoid widely separating subject and verb. If it seems necessary to do so, it probably means that you need to rethink the entire sentence.

Also, just as a style point, I would suggest "placed" instead of "planned" for walkways if you must use "on the paths".

Alternatively, I would replace "on the paths of possible" with "according to". It reduces the complexity of the sentence and makes it more readable.

Originally Posted by Matroskin Kot

Also, just as a style point, I would suggest "placed" instead of "planned" for walkways if you must use "on the paths".

Alternatively, I would replace "on the paths of possible" with "according to". It reduces the complexity of the sentence and makes it more readable.

If I understand the intended meaning of that sentence correctly, it should say "planned" (or some other synonym of it) rather than "placed."

E.g. you are designing a layout of paved pathwalks for a project of some industrial coompound. It is still a design stage. Still, you can predict the routes most people would take. And that is where you plan to place pathwalks.

Of course, I might be wrong, depending on the lacking context.
Your second suggestion ("according to") does make for better readability

Originally Posted by translations.nm.ru

If I understand the intended meaning of that sentence correctly, it should say "planned" (or some other synonym of it) rather than "placed."

E.g. you are designing a layout of paved pathwalks for a project of some industrial coompound. It is still a design stage. Still, you can predict the routes most people would take. And that is where you plan to place pathwalks.

Yes, that's how I understood it, too. However, it just sounds a bit odd to say plan in combination with on the paths. It sounds a bit like you are doing the actual planning while on the the path. You can understand the meaning from the context, but I think my suggestion is an improvement because planning is implicit in placing, and therefore need not be mentioned. ИМХО

[quote=Matroskin Kot]

Originally Posted by "translations.nm.ru":1ec2utde

If I understand the intended meaning of that sentence correctly, it should say "planned" (or some other synonym of it) rather than "placed."

E.g. you are designing a layout of paved pathwalks for a project of some industrial coompound. It is still a design stage. Still, you can predict the routes most people would take. And that is where you plan to place pathwalks.

Yes, that's how I understood it, too. However, it just sounds a bit odd to say plan in combination with on the paths. It sounds a bit like you are doing the actual planning while on the the path. You can understand the meaning from the context, but I think my suggestion is an improvement because planning is implicit in placing, and therefore need not be mentioned. ИМХО [/quote:1ec2utde]

Just because you plan something you intend to carry out the action doens't mean you just replace the word "plan" with the intended verb.

Originally Posted by chaika

>2. Walkways should be planned on the paths of possible personnel movements and slab paved areas adjacent to the checkpoints of the administration and utility building.

This is not a sentence beyond "and", and the first part doesn't really make sense, I mean -- "possible personnel movements"? It is too much like Russian. Remember: English sentences are less verbose than Russian ones.

Outdoor planning [or: landscaping?] should include walkways for movement between buildings and slabbed or paved areas adjacent to ....
[I don't know the terms, but you get the idea.]

You are sort of right, but you can't accuse this sentence of being too verbose without knowing the exact context it is going to be used in. For example, if this is an architect's plans, then the fact that it is "personnel" movement, and not any of kind of movement may have to be specified. You don't have to automatically reduce the register to an everyday conversational style just because it sounds better to you like that.

Maybe not, but "walkways for personnel movement" is a phrase from the same bag as "walking by foot" I mean, who do you plan walkways for, passing cattle herds??

I think Ramil's choice of "path" is a mistranslation. I bet you dollars to doughnuts it is a translation of путь or a derivative, and it should have been "route". As trans.nm.ru said, the place isn't built yet, there are no "paths".

"Engineereese" is a tricky variation of English.

Originally Posted by chaika

I think Ramil's choice of "path" is a mistranslation. I bet you dollars to doughnuts it is a translation of путь or a derivative, and it should have been "route".

Yes, it's "на возможном пути передвижений персонала следует запланировать тротуары"