請問以下三段句子是否有更好的寫法?或是文法使用上是否有問題?

Question

請問以下三段句子是否有更好的寫法?或是文法使用上是否有問題?請大家指教~~~謝謝~~~

The mass of experimental evidences convincingly shows that the current consensus on this problem is incorrect. Is "mass" correct?

There are infinitely many possible x's and, for a given x, still many possible orientations of reflected shocks followed by, again, many possible supersonic Q waves for a given PMR problem in terms of parameter space ofMs and Zs.

These complete mismatches imply total irrelvance between the three waves, yet a triple-point do in fact exists.

Answer 1

版主您好:

The mass of experimental evidences convincingly shows that the current consensus on this problem is incorrect.

There are infinitely many possible x's and, for a given x, still many possible orientations of reflected shocks followed by, again, many possible supersonic Q waves for a given PMR problem in terms of parameter space ofMs and Zs.

These complete mismatches imply total irrelvance between the three waves, yet a triple-point do in fact exists.

更正版:

The mass of experimental evidence convincingly shows that the current consensus on this subject is incorrect.

[evidence]當"證據"時, 常用單數型. [mass]的用法OK.

There are infinite possible x'es and, for any given x still exist many likely orientations of reflected shocks followed by, again, various conceivable supersonic Q waves for each PMR problem in terms of parameter space of Ms and Zs.

[infinite]已經隱含many的語意.
[x]的複數型, 因為發音的關係, 應該是[x'es]
[for any given]: 用any強調"沒有例外". 句尾用each以求變化.
[possible]/[likely]/[conceivable]: 以求變化.
[infinite]/[many]/[various]: 以求變化.
[in terms of]後面以不加冠詞為更普遍.

These complete mismatches imply total irrelevance between the three waves, yet a triple-point do, in fact, exists.

如果您要強調這三個waves是"兩兩之間"不相關, 可以用between; 要是放在"整體的"不相關性, 則以among為宜.
[in fact]前後的逗號純粹是個人偏好, 應無關乎對錯.



改寫版: 僅供參考

Given the mass of experimental evidence, we are convinced of the potential faultiness of the current consensus on this issue.

Numerous possible orientations correspond to each of the infinite x'es, and are in turn followed by various likely supersonic Q waves for each PMR problem in terms of parameter space of Ms and Zs.

A triple-point do, in fact, exist with these entire mismatches revealing sheer irrelevance among the three waves.



2007-07-01 16:44:28 補充：
抱歉!
"[x]的複數型, 因為發音的關係, 應該是[x'es]"
還是把它取消好了.
照您原來的用法應該比較正確.

Answer 2

A huge amount of evidence in the experiment convincingly shows that the current theory about this problem is incorrect.

*Mass is not appropriate in this context because it brings a clumsy idea to the sentence. Also avoid using the word "consensus", it hints redundancy. I chose to use huge amount instead of mass or vast because it does not exaggerate, but this is my personal opinion, the discretion is yours.


There are infinite possible x's and a given x is followed by many possible orientations of reflected shocks. Again, there are many possible supersonic Q waves for a given PMR problem in terms of parameter space of Ms and Zs.

* no real grammatical error, I just paraphrased it for you :)


These complete mismatches indicates that there is no relationship between the three waves. However, a triple-point does in fact exist.

* is this what you are trying to say? I am not entirely sure, but I hope this helps.

2007-07-01 08:29:17 補充：
Oopsy, the last one should be

These complete mismatches indicate that there is no relationship between the three waves. However, a triple-point does in fact exist.

not indicates, stupid typo

Answer 3

The vast of experimental evidences convincingly shows that the current consensus on this issue is incorrect.
There are infinitely many possible x's and, for a given x, still many possible orientations of the reflected shocks followed by, again, many possible supersonic Q waves for a given PMR problem in terms of the parameter space of Ms and Zs.

These distinctive mismatches imply total irrelvance among the three waves, yet a triple-point does in fact exist.
藍色部份是我個人偏好, 你寫的也很棒.
文法上只有最後一句需要改.