• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Grammar question(s)

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
29,826
Location
Yokohama, Japan
OK, native speakers of English. Help me out with something I'm editing.

It's about correct usage of the word 'transmit'.

Now, for example, the phrase "a lens transmits light" seems perfectly fine to me, but what about the following:

light that has transmitted an artery

I changed it to the following:
light that has been transmitted through an artery

Can light "transmit" an artery (or anything that might transmit light, for example)? It seems dubious to me, so I changed it. But was that necessary? The change does add extra words.
 
Word order is important in this case.

An artery can transmit light (I'm assuming that there is a light source inside, or behind the artery), but light can't transmit an artery.

The latter would mean that the light is emitting arteries.
 
Thanks. That's what I thought.

It has to do with a device that measures a pulse rate using light.

I'd be inclined to use the light passes through/has passed through the artery. Nothing wrong grammatically with transmit, but it's longer, less common and doesn't add extra precision or anything.
 
Not a native speaker!

... but what about the following:

light that has transmitted an artery


It doesn't seem right to me, but it comes close to this one (Google):

3.
allow (heat, light, sound, electricity, or other energy) to pass through a medium.
"the three bones transmit sound waves to the inner ear"


But only if you forget the word allow, so I agree with the solution: "light that has passed through an artery."
 
OK, native speakers of English. Help me out with something I'm editing.

It's about correct usage of the word 'transmit'.

Now, for example, the phrase "a lens transmits light" seems perfectly fine to me, but what about the following:

light that has transmitted an artery

I changed it to the following:
light that has been transmitted through an artery

Can light "transmit" an artery (or anything that might transmit light, for example)? It seems dubious to me, so I changed it. But was that necessary? The change does add extra words.
I do not think light can transmit an artery.

If the light is passing through the artery, it would not be incorrect to say, "light transits the artery."

The transmitter of light would either be the source of the light or a medium specifically meant to carry the light. Flashlights and fiberoptic cables transmit light, arteries not so much.

I would definitely go with "light passes through the artery" or "light transits the artery" which means the same thing in a slightly more high falut'n sounding way.
 
I would definitely use "light which has passed through an artery" there.

Can't think of a better single word option. "Crossed" perhaps, but "passed through" is clearer. There ought to be a trans-something term like "transected" but that sounds like the light cut the artery in half.
 
OK, native speakers of English. Help me out with something I'm editing.

It's about correct usage of the word 'transmit'.

Now, for example, the phrase "a lens transmits light" seems perfectly fine to me, but what about the following:

light that has transmitted an artery

I changed it to the following:
light that has been transmitted through an artery

Can light "transmit" an artery (or anything that might transmit light, for example)? It seems dubious to me, so I changed it. But was that necessary? The change does add extra words.

A lens transmits light, but that's not common usage. Most commonly, "transmit" is used synonymously with "emit", and refers specifically to the source of the energy.

A light bulb transmits light (though we'd probably say "emits"). A lens transmits light, yes, but we don't normally talk like that.

Light passes through artery walls, or along the interior of an artery.

A radio antenna transmits a radio signal. There's also a distinction between emitting raw energy and transmitting a signal. Depending on the context, and the exact nature of the process you're trying to describe, emits may be the better translation. If you're shining light through an artery wall, that's probably going to be "emits", not "transmits". If you're sending messages to a ship at sea by means of light pulses, that's going to be "transmits".

Some usages are technically correct, but don't land well on the ears of a native speaker.
 
Last edited:
I would definitely use "light which has passed through an artery" there.

Can't think of a better single word option. "Crossed" perhaps, but "passed through" is clearer. There ought to be a trans-something term like "transected" but that sounds like the light cut the artery in half.

Transit, verb to pass over or through.

If I read, "the light transmitted the artery" I would assume it was a typo or auto-correct for transit.
 
A lens transmits light, but that's not common usage. Most commonly, "transmit" is used synonymously with "emit", and refers specifically to the source of the energy.
A light bulb transmits light (though we'd probably say "emits"). A lens transmits light, yes, but we don't normally talk like that.

Light passes through artery walls, or along the interior of an artery.

A radio antenna transmits a radio signal. There's also a distinction between emitting raw energy and transmitting a signal. Depending on the context, and the exact nature of the process you're trying to describe, emits may be the better translation. If you're shining light through an artery wall, that's probably going to be "emits", not "transmits". If you're sending messages to a ship at sea by means of light pulses, that's going to be "transmits".

Some usages are technically correct, but don't land well on the ears of a native speaker.

I don't think the highlighted is correct. Transmit and emit are far from being synonyms.

Sources of light (Bulbs, candles, stars, LEDs) emit light, they do it whenever they are active, regardless of whether anything uses the light.
Optical systems (fibres, mirrors, polarisers, lenses) transmit light. Transmit carries the meaning of going from one location to another for a purpose.
You would only say a radio antenna transmits a signal if you were going to refer to the receiver in the next few sentences.

If you want to be fancy about light going through an artery, you could say the artery modulates the light, as it presumably changes the light passing through it depending on the pulse rate.
 
I would definitely use "light which has passed through an artery" there.

Can't think of a better single word option. "Crossed" perhaps, but "passed through" is clearer. There ought to be a trans-something term like "transected" but that sounds like the light cut the artery in half.

I was wondering if they meant "transited" instead of transmitted. And autocorrect kicked in. Especially if they spelled "transited" with a 3rd "t" like I just did.
 
Yes, I guess transit is the word that wouldn't come to my mind.

"Light which has transited an artery" would be entirely correct, though it carries a very slight air of specialised technical terminology which might make readers think "If they just meant "passed through" why didn't they say that instead? So do they mean something subtly different?". I think the plain English "passed through" wins by being simple and unambiguous.
 
I'd be inclined to use the light passes through/has passed through the artery. Nothing wrong grammatically with transmit, but it's longer, less common and doesn't add extra precision or anything.

Yeah, I thought about that. If light is the active subject, I think you need to use "pass through" rather than "transmit". Note that you need two words there. If light is the passive subject, it "is transmitted through" but you can't leave out the "is" and "through".

Light itself cannot "transmit" is what I'm saying. It can only "be transmitted".
 
Not a native speaker!




It doesn't seem right to me, but it comes close to this one (Google):




But only if you forget the word allow, so I agree with the solution: "light that has passed through an artery."

That's correct. The medium can "transmit" light or sound but light or sound can only "be transmitted" by a medium.
 
OK, native speakers of English. Help me out with something I'm editing.

It's about correct usage of the word 'transmit'.

Now, for example, the phrase "a lens transmits light" seems perfectly fine to me, but what about the following:

light that has transmitted an artery

I changed it to the following:
light that has been transmitted through an artery

Can light "transmit" an artery (or anything that might transmit light, for example)? It seems dubious to me, so I changed it. But was that necessary? The change does add extra words.

So no this implies to a native English speaker the light is carrying the artery. Light might transmit a signal.

Transmission / transmit has an active sense rather than an entirely passive sense; often what is meant is X allowed the transmission of Y e.g. 'the window allowed transmission of the laser light from the ground into the pilots eye blinding him and causing the plane to crash'. A radar station transmits radio waves over the horizon by bouncing off the ionosphere. An operator receives the transmission.

It really depends on what you are trying to say. In some instances transilluminate may be a better word. If you are looking at an artery with the internal structure shown by the passage of light through the artery, transilluminate would be better.
As others have said transits or even travels might be better. 'Light travels along fibre optics due to TIR', sounds better than 'light transmits along fibre optics' because this is a passive process. OTOH 'light is transmitted along long distance fibre optics by laser boosters' would be more correct as there is an active process.
 
Last edited:
"Transit" was my first thought as well when trying to parse the initial sentence.

Yeah, because then you don't need to add the word "through" and the spelling is pretty close. But in this case I don't think that's the word they intended to use.

I guess I should explain that this was a translation of Japanese to English and the particular Japanese word was 透過する (dictionary link) which can be translated as transmit or permeate, but probably not transit. They were just using transmit the wrong way (and it was throughout the document). I'm pretty sure of that now. Probably because the word can be used that way in Japanese.

The other translation for 透過する is permeate, but I don't know if you can say that light "permeates" through an artery. It's not a word I use much. Apparently it comes from a Latin word meaning 'passed through' so maybe.
 
Permeate usually implies a end result of the substance being permeated being present in all parts of the medium. It's similar to the reason why diffuse would also not be a great choice.
 
Permeate usually implies a end result of the substance being permeated being present in all parts of the medium. It's similar to the reason why diffuse would also not be a great choice.

Yeah, the way it's used in modern English seems to differ from its Latin roots.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/permeate

Spread throughout (something); pervade.

Origin
Mid 17th century from Latin permeat- ‘passed through’, from the verb permeare, from per- ‘through’ + meare ‘pass, go’.
 
OK, native speakers of English. Help me out with something I'm editing.

It's about correct usage of the word 'transmit'.

Now, for example, the phrase "a lens transmits light" seems perfectly fine to me, but what about the following:

light that has transmitted an artery

I changed it to the following:
light that has been transmitted through an artery

Can light "transmit" an artery (or anything that might transmit light, for example)? It seems dubious to me, so I changed it. But was that necessary? The change does add extra words.


Just a thought, but could it be a typo or auto correct error and intended to be

Light that has transited an artery

or

Light that has traversed an artery
 
Yeah, because then you don't need to add the word "through" and the spelling is pretty close. But in this case I don't think that's the word they intended to use.

I guess I should explain that this was a translation of Japanese to English and the particular Japanese word was 透過する (dictionary link) which can be translated as transmit or permeate, but probably not transit. They were just using transmit the wrong way (and it was throughout the document). I'm pretty sure of that now. Probably because the word can be used that way in Japanese.

The other translation for 透過する is permeate, but I don't know if you can say that light "permeates" through an artery. It's not a word I use much. Apparently it comes from a Latin word meaning 'passed through' so maybe.

I think there is too little context to advise. One would probably need to see at least a paragraph to understand what they are trying to say.
 
I think there is too little context to advise. One would probably need to see at least a paragraph to understand what they are trying to say.

Thanks, but I've already figured out what I wanted to know at the time.

Unfortunately I can't really share whole paragraphs because of, well, contractual reasons. I was only trying to make sure I had the grammar right.
 
I think it might also make a difference if you're talking about light that is travelling along the artery vs light that is transecting the artery by passing across it through the walls.
 
Back
Top Bottom