Re: Microscopy or Microscopies

Posted by Teng-Leong Chew on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Microscopy-or-Microscopies-tp7579142p7579159.html

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi all,

Chris Booth has already given the solution in the last sentence of
his previous e-mail.

"...confocal and light sheet microscopy techniques."

I recently finished an institutional report that sums up and lists
all the services offered by our core and it was frustrating to
encounter this dilemma in almost every paragraph (another such
example is the word software, which is always singular). I basically
adopted the sentence structure above, using the word "techniques"
as the grammatical solution when I had to talk about 10 different
'microscopies' in one sentence.

Best,
Leong

--
Teng-Leong Chew, PhD

Director, Cell Imaging Facility & Nikon Imaging Center
Northwestern University
312-503-2841




On 10/9/12 12:04 PM, "Engstrom, Lars" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>*****
>To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>*****
>
>I think the best scientific approach is to support your decision with
>data, similar to the Google and Pubmed searches previously presented but
>with more context.
>
>http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/5R25WGP
>
>I will report the data on Friday morning.
>-Lars
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
>On Behalf Of Chris Booth
>Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 6:33 AM
>To: [hidden email]
>Subject: Re: Microscopy or Microscopies
>
>*****
>To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>*****
>
>Hey George,
>I would like to address the way that it would possibly sound to someone
>who
>isn't currently knowledgeable about advanced microscopy techniques, and
>not
>on this list serve like we are. Personally, I think the way that it is
>worded could
>create confusion as far as what type of microscopy/microscopies you are
>talking about. When you say "using confocal and light sheet fluorescence
>microscopies" it would read that you are using multiple types of
>microscopy,
>both confocal and light sheet fluorescence, due to the plural of
>microscopy.
>Grammatically I think this is correct, but it doesn't sound as good.
>However, if
>you were to say "using confocal and light sheet fluorescence microscopy"
>it
>reads as if the imaging technique used was confocal/light sheet
>fluorescence
>microscopy, which all of us on this listserve understand as two
>completely
>different techniques, but to a foreigner of advanced microscopy, they
>wouldn't
>know the difference and it would be confusing. Therefore, I think
>grammatically
>it would be better if you added the word "both" before confocal and light
>sheet... thus it would read "...using both confocal and light sheet
>microscopy" In
>this case, microscopy would be the correct form since you are talking
>about a
>single confocal microscopy technique and a single light sheet technique
>due to
>the separation provided by the word both. I think the reviewer is
>overseeing the
>fact that microscopies is talking about multiple types/forms of
>microscopy
>techniques while microscopy is only talking about a single instance.
>Thus,
>without the word both before confocal OR the plural of microscopy, there
>is no
>indication of difference between confocal and light sheet microscopy
>techniques.  
>I hope this helps!
>-Chris