Know Into

[lehe]

What does Know Into mean in this sentence "Sometimes we know into how many clusters our data should fit." How does it differ with Know and Know Of

 

[2ffat]

In this case, I assume that this means that they know how many clusters their data fits into. Sort of like saying, "Two goes into twelve, six times."


James P. Cottingham
[sup]I'm number 1,229!
I'm number 1,229![/sup]

 

[Stella740pl]

I agree, "into" isn't a part of some specific "know into" expression, it doesn't go with "know", it refers to "clusters".

This sentence could be rephrased - it wouldn't make it better, but may help understand its structure. Say, like this:

Our data fits into several clusters. How many is that? Sometimes we know how many clusters it will take, and sometimes we don't.

 

[AnotherHiggins]

I suspect that the writer constructed the sentence that way to avoid finishing the sentence with a preposition.

If not for that, it would have read, "Sometimes we know how many clusters our data should fit into".

But, as James and Stella said, "Know into" is not a phrase.

[tt][blue]-John[/blue][/tt]
[tab][red]The plural of anecdote is not data[/red]

Help us help you. Please read FAQ 181-2886 before posting.

 

[Turkbear]

Hi, Yes,

I suspect that the writer constructed the sentence that way to avoid finishing the sentence with a preposition.

That is probably why..
After all, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which we should not put.







To Paraphrase:"The Help you get is proportional to the Help you give.."

 

[Stella740pl]

I suspect that the writer constructed the sentence that way to avoid finishing the sentence with a preposition.
If not for that, it would have read, "Sometimes we know how many clusters our data should fit into".

This, then, raises the question: "What's wrong with ending a sentence with a preposition, again?

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> "What's wrong with ending a sentence with a preposition, again?"
Nothing. The error is using a preposition without an object of the preposition. More often than not, sentences that end in prepositions do not have objects, and the easiest way to avoid that error is to not end a sentence with a preposition.

Unfortunately, the tactic to avoid making the error is confused with the error itself.


--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Stella740pl]

The error is using a preposition without an object of the preposition. More often than not, sentences that end in prepositions do not have objects, and the easiest way to avoid that error is to not end a sentence with a preposition.

Could you offer a few examples? I am not sure I understand.

 

[CajunCenturion]

Please allow me to correct what I said earlier. When I said, "More often than not, sentences that end in prepositions do not have objects, ...", what I meant to say what that prepositions that do not have objects usually come at the end of sentences. I'm sorry for that misstatement.

As far as examples, pick any sentence that ends in a preposition and ask, "What is the object of that preposition?" If you can't tell what the object is, the object doesn't exist, or the preposition creates ambiguity, then that sentence should not end with that preposition. Not because the preposition is at the end, but because the preposition is stranded without an object.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[mmerlinn]

[ ]
A "preposition" that comes at the end of a sentence is no longer a "preposition" in my view. It becomes a "postposition."

Of course, that is entirely my view.

What I hate about the preposition-at-the-end-of-the-sentence rule is that it is a Latin (Romance language) rule that supposedly should be applied to a Teutonic based language to make the Teutonic language "better." I say, forget about trying to make English (or any other language for that matter) conform to the rules of any other language. Every language has its own set of rules and trying to impose outside rules on that language just makes for lots of confusion and many times convoluted excuses for sentences in that language.

That said, "know into" is meaningless to me. It sounds like the kind of construction that an Indian English speaker would use.

The most common Indian English phrase I run into is "May I know your name?" instead of "What is your name?" or "Please tell me your name." When I am asked "May I know your name?" I generally answer "You have my permission to know my name" and I don't volunteer any more information. My reply generally drives the Indian English speakers up a wall.


mmerlinn

http://mmerlinn.com

"We've found by experience that people who are careless and sloppy writers are usually also careless and sloppy at thinking and coding. Answering questions for careless and sloppy thinkers is not rewarding." - Eric Steven Raymond

 

[SantaMufasa]

Lehe,

A re-wording of your original sentence may clarify that "know into" is not a clause that the author intended:

We know, sometimes, into how many clusters our data should fit.

Are you okay now with the original intent of the sentence?


Let us know,

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]
“Beware of those that seek to protect you from harm or risk. The cost will be your freedoms and your liberty.”

 

[Michael52x]

I like your re-wording, Santa. It does make it smoother.

Is a "post position" like a "posterior view" ?


"Impatience will reward you with dissatisfaction" RMS Cosmics'97

 

[GSCaupling]

Is a "post position" like a "posterior view" ?

It is if you're sitting on a fence!

GS


[small][navy]**********************^*********************
I always know where people are going to sit. I'm chairvoyant.[/navy][/small]