1. Remove the frame parameter that sets the frame to be semi-transparent.
or
2. Remove the frame parameter causing the frame to be semi-transparent.
Does the word "cause" need to be in the past? Considering that I remove the frame parameter:
Remove the frame parameter that caused the frame to be semi-transparent.
Which one sounds more natural?
Context:
I'm talking about frame parameter in the Emacs text editing software, as described here:
https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Frame-Parameters.html
A frame in Emacs is what you would call a window in other editors or software.
Zoltán KirályWhich one sounds more natural?
This one:
Remove the frame parameter causing the frame to be semi-transparent.
Zoltán KirályDoes the word "cause" need to be in the past? Considering that I remove the frame parameter:
No. Not at all.
CJ
Comments
Thank you for your answer. I appreciate your time. I forgot to add that after removing the frame parameter, the semi-transparency is gone and it becomes opaque. That's what I meant. I'm not sure if this sentence communicates that:
Remove the frame parameter causing the frame to be semi-transparent.
It sounds like the removal of the parameter causes the semi-transparency which is not what I meant.
The removal causes the transparency to be removed is what I meant.
That would require a comma: "Remove the frame parameter, causing the frame to be semi-transparent." But that is not very clear, and if I were the recipient of this instruction, I would not know what to do for sure. I read it the way you meant it first try without ambiguity the way you had it.
I see how you're reading it to get that interpretation, but that's not how I read it. I read it as
1) Remove the frame parameter which is causing the frame to be semi-transparent.
and I think almost all native speakers would read it the same way.
I don't read it (mistakenly) as
2) Remove the frame parameter; that removal will cause the frame to be semi-transparent.
Use 1) if it makes you feel better.
CJ