Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 5 Dec 2018 at 11:07.
Is "using" actually needed in that sentence?
Regarding the product though, are you sure it's an integrated circuit and not a Swedish recreational vehicle?
Yes, because "That WD has been playing with the open RISC-V ISA, which anyone can produce a processor design without paying a penny in royalties or licensing fees, is no secret..." is gibberish. You could move "using" a few words down, but you can't remove it without rewriting the sentence.
Going by "the core runs at up to 1.8GHz and achieves a claimed estimated performance of 4.9 CoreMarks per megahertz", it has enough Bungholiomarks to be 1997's fastest GPU!
I see the main sentence as: "That WD has been playing with RISC-V ISA is no secret."
And you insert an explanation of what the RISC-V ISA is in a subclause delimited with commas: "(something) which anyone can produce a processor design (with) without paying a penny in royalties or licensing fees"
You can bind the two clauses in two ways:
RISC-V ISA, which anyone can produce a design with
RISC-V ISA, using something which anyone can produce a design with
The bolded italics are mandatory. Replace "something" with specification / intellectual property / a standard / etc.
Yes, that's correct.
Yes, except I write it as 'using which anyone can produce a processor design without paying a penny in royalties or licensing fees.' Which is a perfectly cromulent wording.
Yes, you could rewrite the sentence in the first way - but you shouldn't, because ending a sentence - even an aside in commas - with "with" is clunky. "With which" would be better, but not as good as it is currently written.
The second version doesn't make sense, because "something" is not defined - you'd have to write "RISC-V ISA, which is something with which anyone can produce a design," which is horrible.
They are absolutely not mandatory, and in either case make the sentence considerably less clear and/or readable.
The sentence, as written, is fine. "Using" could be replaced with "with" to make 'That WD has been playing with the open RISC-V ISA, with which anyone can produce a processor design without paying a penny in royalties or licensing fees, is no secret...' but that's not removing "using," that's replacing "using" - which, as I said, means you've rewritten the sentence.
So, again: you cannot remove "using" from the sentence without replacing it with another word, and if you're doing that what's wrong with just leaving it as "using?"
I'm out of arguments. It just does not sound correct to me. I'm not a native speaker, so my knowledge of the English language may be incorrect or outdated. Since no one else is submitting any opinion either way, I'll defer to your version.
But I learned a new word today: cromulent Thank you for that!
I can assure you, it is correct.
I should probably mention that "cromulent" isn't, strictly speaking, a "real" word - before you use it in a context where Simpsons references wouldn't be appreciated!
A Simpsons-originating not-a-real-word term? That's the best kind!
Separate names with a comma.