[General] make the machine of a smaller size

[raymondaliasapollyon]

Hi,

I'm wondering whether the boldaced phrase in the following should be "make a machine of a smaller size," "make the machine in a smaller size," or "make the machine of a smaller size."

So I began the project of constructing my own helicopter. However, as parts for the regular size were out of stock, I decided to make the machine of a smaller size.



​

 

[GoesStation]

Source and author?

Three of the last four words are unnecessary.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

I modelled it on a sentence in Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. I'd like to see how the prepositions are used.

If a prepositional phrase has to be used, which one is correct?

 

[GoesStation]

Writing styles have changed a lot in two hundred years. Wordiness was considered elegant in Shelley's era. Now it's just ponderous. Here's a modern way to use extra, unnecessary words to express the idea: I decided to make the machine in a smaller form factor.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

Writing styles have changed a lot in two hundred years. Wordiness was considered elegant in Shelley's era. Now it's just ponderous. Here's a modern way to use extra, unnecessary words to express the idea: I decided to make the machine in a smaller form factor.

I think "in" should be used, too. But Mary Shelley wrote the following:

Nor could I consider the magnitude and complexity of my plan as any argument of its impracticability. It was with these feelings that I began the creation of a human being. As the minuteness of the parts formed a great hindrance to my speed, I resolved, contrary to my first intention, to make the being of a gigantic stature; that is to say, about eight feet in height, and proportionably large.

 

[GoesStation]

Her sentence was fine when she wrote it two hundred years ago. It's not a good model for a 21st-century learner.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

Could it be that the "make" in the original means "to cause to become"? That way, the "of a gigantic stature" (= gigantic) would be easily understandable.

 

[GoesStation]

Could it be that the "make" in the original means "to cause to become"? That way, the "of a gigantic stature" (= gigantic) would be easily understandable.

No. She meant "make it really big".

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

No. She meant "make it really big".

That's exactly what "to cause (sb or sth) to become" means. To make it big is to cause it to become big.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I modelled it on a sentence in Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. I'd like to see how the prepositions are used.

If a prepositional phrase has to be used, which one is correct?

If you're trying to create a sentence in exactly that form, it would have to be one of these:

- I decided to make a machine of a smaller size.

- I decided to make the machine in a smaller size.

But as the others have already explained, neither would be as natural as something like "I decided to make a smaller one."

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

I'm considering three possibilities about Mary Shelley's passage, repeated as below:

Nor could I consider the magnitude and complexity of my plan as any argument of its impracticability. It was with these feelings that I began the creation of a human being. As the minuteness of the parts formed a great hindrance to my speed, I resolved, contrary to my first intention, to make the being of a gigantic stature; that is to say, about eight feet in height, and proportionably large.

1. Mary Shelley made a mistake when she used "of a gigantic stature." She should have used "in a gigantic stature."

2. She did not make a mistake; "make" has a causative meaning, as in "make him happy," and "of a gigantic stature" is a just verbose way of saying "gigantic."

3. "Of a gigantic stature" also meant "in a gigantic stature" in her days.

Concering the third possibility, Sir Walter Scott once paraphrased Shelley's sentence, where he used "constructed" and "of a gigantic size" together.

As the minuteness of the parts formed a great difficulty, he constructed the figure which he proposed to animate of a gigantic size, . . .

https://books.google.com.tw/books?i...posed to animate of a gigantic size "&f=false

 

[GoesStation]

1. Mary Shelley made a mistake when she used "of a gigantic stature." She should have used "in a gigantic stature.":cross:

2. She did not make a mistake; "make" has a causative meaning, as in "make him happy," and "of a gigantic stature" is a just verbose way of saying "gigantic.":tick:

3. "Of a gigantic stature" also meant "in a gigantic stature" in her days.:cross:

"In" is not possible in the quoted sentence. Consider the literary circle Mary Shelley inhabited, and with whom she shared her work before publication. Do you think they wouldn't have pointed out a careless error?

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

"In" is not possible in the quoted sentence. Consider the literary circle Mary Shelley inhabited, and with whom she shared her work before publication. Do you think they wouldn't have pointed out a careless error?

I wouldn't rationalize her sentence just because she was a respected writer or associated with other celebrities.
As an aside, here is something very suspicious by her:

We, however, lay to until the morning, fearing to encounter in the dark those large loose masses which float about after the breaking up of the ice. I profited of this time to rest for a few hours.

Do you think the present-tense float is correct here?

In rather a too philosophical and connected a strain, perhaps, I have given an account of the conclusions I had come to concerning them in my early years.

Is it correct to use two indefinite articles here?

Anyway, let us return to the real issue. The first possibility is worth considering, because there are examples in current English like the following:

Budesonide must be compounded because capsules for human use are manufactured in a 3-mg size.

The third possibility is also a tenable one, because without it, how would you explain Sir Walter Scott's paraphrase?
Apparently, his use of "of a gigantic size" corresponds to "in a gigantic size" in current Engish.

 

[GoesStation]

We, however, lay to until the morning, fearing to encounter in the dark those large loose masses which float about after the breaking up of the ice. I profited of this time to rest for a few hours.

Do you think the present-tense float is correct here?

Yes. The floating is a repeated occurrence that happens each time the ice breaks up.

The first possibility is worth considering, because there are examples in current English like the following:

Budesonide must be compounded because capsules for human use are manufactured in a 3-mg size.

Pills are typically made in various dosages. "In" is the right preposition for the context.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

Yes. The floating is a repeated occurrence that happens each time the ice breaks up.

The past-tense "floated" would have been a better choice, as the narrator was describing a past event. The state of the ice at the time of narration matters not so much as the state of the ice before the morning.

Pills are typically made in various dosages. "In" is the right preposition for the context.

Whether the pills come in various dosages is irrelevant to the preposition used. Consider another example:

The product itself, however. is usually produced in a particular size.

 

[GoesStation]

The past-tense "floated" would have been a better choice, as the narrator was describing a past event. The state of the ice at the time of narration matters not so much as the state of the ice before the morning.

Next time you write Frankenstein, you should definitely use the past simple. Shelley was describing a scene, evoking in the reader's mind the seasonal breakup of the ice. You use the present simple for such narratives.

Whether the pills come in various dosages is irrelevant to the preposition used.

No it isn't. We use "in" when discussing the sizes in which an item is made. Unless Frankenstein manufactured monsters in a range of sizes, it's the wrong preposition for the context of your quotation.

You seem to be here for the purpose of arguing rather than learning. Thread closed.