The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

If the war continued, 'annihilation would be' OR 'it would be annihilation'.(linking verbs) Options
A cooperator
Posted: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 4:35:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,784
Neurons: 10,062
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Hi everyone!
AFAIK, If we have no other subject, we use "there" or "it".
Which one is the most correct?

If the war continued, annihilation would be.

If the war continued, it would be annihilation.

If the war continued, annihilation would be there.

If the war continued, there would be annihilation.

Although I don't see the three others are wrong, I think the first one is the most correct one since there is no need to have a complement noun 'annihilation' like in the second one, or a complement dummy 'there' in the third one. I think the subject 'annihilation' and its verb 'would be' in the first one can convey a complete meaning.







Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Fyfardens
Posted: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 5:44:54 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 12/16/2017
Posts: 333
Neurons: 4,662


The first is simply wrong,
The second is possible if we assume that 'it' refers to situation resulting from the war.
The third would require a very contrived context.
The fourth is OK.



I speak British English (standard southern, slightly dated).
A cooperator
Posted: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 5:55:26 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,784
Neurons: 10,062
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Fyfardens wrote:


The first is simply wrong,
The second is possible if we assume that 'it' refers to situation resulting from the war.
The third would require a very contrived context.
The fourth is OK.



Thanks a lot,
Why do you think that the first one is wrong as long as it has a real subject and a finite verb which doesn't need an object?Think
But I know If we have no other subject, we use "there" or "it" as dummy subjects, but they are never real subjects.
Also, I think 'would be' doesn't need to have a complement noun, it can convey a complete meaning with the subject. As a result, I think the first one is correct, but I think, it is the most correct one.
If the war continued, annihilation would be.
"annihilation' ....subject, 'Would be"..... a verbal phrase.


Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
georgew
Posted: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:13:54 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 8/13/2016
Posts: 92
Neurons: 838
A cooperator wrote:
Hi everyone!
AFAIK, If we have no other subject, we use "there" or "it".
Which one is the most correct?

If the war continued, annihilation would be.
If the war continued, there would be/would have been annihilation.

If the war continued, it would be annihilation.
Not grammatically wrong, but this has very limited applicability.

If the war continued, annihilation would be there.
See #2.

If the war continued, there would be annihilation.
See my answer to #1.
NKM
Posted: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:15:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/14/2015
Posts: 4,654
Neurons: 242,831
Location: Corinth, New York, United States
Annihilation is not something which is or "is there"; it is something that happens.

"If the war continued, annihilation would result. "
"If the war continued, annihilation would be the result."
"If the war continued, annihilation would follow."
"If the war continued, annihilation would be inevitable."


But not just "annihilation would be."

Fyfardens
Posted: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:18:09 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 12/16/2017
Posts: 333
Neurons: 4,662
A cooperator wrote:
I think the first one is correct, but I think, it is the most correct one.
If the war continued, annihilation would be.
"annihilation' ....subject, 'Would be"..... a verbal phrase.


Annihilation would be what?

The verb BE almost always requires some form of subject complement, normally a noun, pronoun or adjective.

The well-known English translation of cogito ergo sum, I think, therefore I am (=I exist) is a rare exception to the normal practice.


I speak British English (standard southern, slightly dated).
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 7:03:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 29,427
Neurons: 169,652
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Hello A Cooperator.

The error in the first sentence ". . . annihilation would be" is simply the choice of verb (as Fyfardens says above). It is true that 'be' and 'exist' are synonyms, but they are not used in the same way.

"Be" is essentially a 'linking verb' or 'copula'. It can rarely come at the end of a sentence unless there is an omitted phrase.
For example "If I asked 'What is the square root of minus one, 'one' could be the answer - or 'minus one' could be (the answer)."
The phrase 'the answer' would normally be omitted, leaving 'be' at the end.

In a sentence like yours, in which there is no complement, "exist" would be used.

In order to use 'be', we need a subject and a complement. Because we do not want to say anything specific, we use the 'dummy subject' "there".

"If the war continued, annihilation would exist."
"If the war continued, there would be annihilation."


These make some sense.

However, as NKM says, we do not normally speak of an action 'existing' or 'being', we would normally use another verb completely ('result', 'follow', or something similar).
"Annihilation" is the action of annihilating something, or being annihilated.

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
A cooperator
Posted: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 7:05:23 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,784
Neurons: 10,062
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
NKM wrote:
Annihilation is not something which is or "is there"; it is something that happens.

"If the war continued, annihilation would result. "
"If the war continued, annihilation would be the result."
"If the war continued, annihilation would follow."
"If the war continued, annihilation would be inevitable."


But not just "annihilation would be."



Thanks a lot,
First of all, do you think that there are other synonyms for "Annihilation" which are somethings which are or are there?

If I had rephrased it as 'If..., annihilation would have been.', it would be still wrong.
Or if I'd said 'if..., it would be annihilation.', it would be still wrong.

It is important to know that when I used 'annihilation would be', I wanted to translate an Arabic sentence in which the second clause(result clause) has a perfect verb which only needs a subject to convey a complete meaning. That arabic sentence has if-clause(condition in theory possible to fulfill, it is possible to happen) in the first part, and has the result clause in the second part.
I was expecting that the finite verb of the result clause in Arabic sentence would be equivalent to 'would be' in English.

If I studied, passing the exam would be.
If the war continued, annihilation would be.


Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Fyfardens
Posted: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 7:08:02 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 12/16/2017
Posts: 333
Neurons: 4,662
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
. It is true that 'be' and 'exist' are synonyms, but they are not used in the same way.


I would say that they are extremely rarely synonyms.

I speak British English (standard southern, slightly dated).
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 7:51:50 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 29,427
Neurons: 169,652
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
It is true that they can rarely be used interchangeably, but if you (imagining yourself to be a foreign ESL student) were to look in a dictionary or thesaurus under "exist", the first thing you would see is "be".

The impression you would come away with is that "be" and "exist" mean the same thing and should be interchangeable.

exist vb (intr)
1. to have being or reality; to be

Collins English Dictionary

ex•ist v.i.
1. to have actual being; be.

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary

Thesaurus
Verb 1. exist - have an existence, be extant; "Is there a God?"
Synonym - be

Based on WordNet 3.0

exist
verb
1. live, be present, be living, last, survive, breathe, endure, be in existence, be, be extant, have breath

Collins Thesaurus of the English Language

exist verb
3. To have reality or life:
be, breathe, live, subsist.

The American Heritage® Roget's Thesaurus


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Audiendus
Posted: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 8:23:27 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 4,973
Neurons: 870,452
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
Fyfardens wrote:
The verb BE almost always requires some form of subject complement, normally a noun, pronoun or adjective.

The well-known English translation of cogito ergo sum, I think, therefore I am (=I exist) is a rare exception to the normal practice.


Yes, and a few stock phrases such as "It was not meant to be" (i.e. it was not destined), or "Let him be" (i.e. leave him alone).
Fyfardens
Posted: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 8:31:18 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 12/16/2017
Posts: 333
Neurons: 4,662
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
It is true that they can rarely be used interchangeably, but if you (imagining yourself to be a foreign ESL student) were to look in a dictionary or thesaurus under "exist", the first thing you would see is "be".


That is one of many reasons that forums such as tfd are useful for learners. Dictionaries attempt to give the meaning of words, not to say how they should be used. We can tell learners such things as the message in the words of yours (above) that I have underlined.

If we tell learners that BE can almost never replace EXIST, and that BE functions primarily as a linking verb, then they will not produce a sentence such as "If the war continued, annihilation would be".


I speak British English (standard southern, slightly dated).
palapaguy
Posted: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 8:48:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 1,010
Neurons: 10,059
Location: Calabasas, California, United States
If we tell learners that BE can almost never replace EXIST, and that BE functions primarily as a linking verb, then they will not produce a sentence such as "If the war continued, annihilation would be".

When I read your sentence, why did an image of YODA flash through my mind? Think
A cooperator
Posted: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 9:57:00 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,784
Neurons: 10,062
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Fyfardens wrote:
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
It is true that they can rarely be used interchangeably, but if you (imagining yourself to be a foreign ESL student) were to look in a dictionary or thesaurus under "exist", the first thing you would see is "be".


That is one of many reasons that forums such as tfd are useful for learners. Dictionaries attempt to give the meaning of words, not to say how they should be used. We can tell learners such things as the message in the words of yours (above) that I have underlined.

If we tell learners that BE can almost never replace EXIST, and that BE functions primarily as a linking verb, then they will not produce a sentence such as "If the war continued, annihilation would be".


Thanks a lot,
However, the liking verbs, (copula verbs) are special kinds of verbs used to join an adjective or noun complement to a subject. Common examples are: be (is, am, are, was, were), appear, seem, look, sound, smell, taste, feel, become.
Thus, my sentence would wrong as "if the war..., annihilation would be."

Would you mind telling me why in my own language, the verb used in the result clause in the first sentence below doesn't need any complement noun for the subject? The clause conveys a complete meaning with the subject and its verb. Though the same verb "to be" used in both Arabic sentences and their equivalencies in English.
I know it isn't supposed to write in Arabic. But I wrote the English sentences equivalent to the Arabic sentences as I think so, and I marked the parts equivalent to each other with the same colours hoping to understand what I want to convey.
If the war continued, then annihilation would be.

لو ظلت الحرب لكان الفناء


However, this sentence below in Arabic language follows the same rule. So, "was" is an auxiliary verb which is a linking verb needing a subject and an adjective. This is the equivalence English sentence to the sentence in Arabic.
The victory was great.

كان النصر عظيما

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
palapaguy
Posted: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 10:32:38 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 1,010
Neurons: 10,059
Location: Calabasas, California, United States
I believe it extremely unlikely that you'll find anyone in this forum capable of explaining/rationalizing English grammar in terms of Arabic grammar. The volunteers here try to teach English as a subject in itself for learners of English.

BUT, a face-to-face English instruction course in your own area with native Arabic speakers would be PERFECT for that purpose. Have you made an effort to locate such courses?
A cooperator
Posted: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 10:44:25 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,784
Neurons: 10,062
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
palapaguy wrote:
I believe it extremely unlikely that you'll find anyone in this forum capable of explaining/rationalizing English grammar in terms of Arabic grammar. The volunteers here try to teach English as a subject in itself for learners of English.

Thanks a lot,
I really wanted to know if there is sort of similarity in grammar rules between English and Arabic, which will help me compose my own sentences in English or translating from my own language to Arabic, vise versa.
If I was wrong, and I don't need to be good my own language to master English, would you be so kind to let it be clear.

Quote:
BUT, a face-to-face English instruction course in your own area with native Arabic speakers would be PERFECT for that purpose. Have you made an effort to locate such courses?

Native Arabic speakers, who are good in Arabic, can only help with how Arabic is used.
But, they cannot help with English-Arabic or Arabic-English aggrement.
If I found English-Arab teachers, neither are they good in English , nor are they good in Arabic. Some English-Arab teachers can speak English well, but I think, only since they had a chance of going to a native English country or been born there. But, they are not good in how to connect the two languages, English and Arabic to produce shared rules, and facilitate the difficulties of the connection between the two languages to help student benefit from their own language to really master the English. Since I feel as if I connected my own language with English, I would have mastered it.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
palapaguy
Posted: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 11:10:51 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 1,010
Neurons: 10,059
Location: Calabasas, California, United States
Native Arabic speakers, who are good in Arabic, can only help with how Arabic is used.
But, they cannot help with English-Arabic or Arabic-English aggrement.


No, and there should be NO NEED to explain "agreement" (if there is such a thing) between those languages. A native Arabic teacher who is also reasonably fluent in English, can teach English grammar - can COMMUNICATE - more clearly to Arabic speakers.

Stop resisting face-to-face English courses.
A cooperator
Posted: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 11:25:29 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,784
Neurons: 10,062
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
palapaguy wrote:
Native Arabic speakers, who are good in Arabic, can only help with how Arabic is used.
But, they cannot help with English-Arabic or Arabic-English aggrement.


No, and there should be NO NEED to explain "agreement" (if there is such a thing) between those languages. A native Arabic teacher who is also reasonably fluent in English, can teach English grammar - can COMMUNICATE - more clearly to Arabic speakers.


I highly disagree. Many Arab teachers had taught us English badly in secondary schools, universities, and in some institutes. I never think English can be learnt by English-Arab teachers who even didn't find little chance of interacting with native English speakers. It is just a false English taught by those ones.
Do you believe me if I tell you some English-Arab teachers(Arab teachers teaching English) write "she does comes tomorrow."

Also, if there were some Arab teachers who teach English well. - English-Arab teachers-, then they wouldn't care about Arabic at all, they may be weak in Arabic twice much or more as they are good in English.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
palapaguy
Posted: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 12:26:46 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 1,010
Neurons: 10,059
Location: Calabasas, California, United States
OK, you've made your prejudices clear: English-Arab teachers practice false English, and your English level qualifies you to criticize the teachers. I note that you've "corrected" native speakers on this forum as well.

Now you have to decide how to proceed with your ongoing English language education. What is your decision? You can: 1) Continue to hang out here for free in a casual forum and argue with the natives, or 2) enroll in a local professional language course with serious learners, or 3) Something else.

Let us know your decision.
thar
Posted: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 12:41:07 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 17,281
Neurons: 69,892
You cannot use grammar from one language to model sentences in such an unrelated language. You must know that,in your heart.

What you need to look at is how this idea is expressed in English.

Have you looked at any other sentences like this in English, in simp!e texts?

What words do they use?



As has been said - you are trying to jump straight to the results without doing the basic work reading texts in the language you are trying to learn.


It is the start of a new year in the English calendar.
I challenge you, thus year, to do something new.

Commit to working intelligently and with a plan, to learn English.
- Using English texts and video designed specially for learners, in a structured progression.

I challenge you to stop reading advanced grammar books, and get out of the hole that is keeping you trapped and learning so slowly.

I predict that if you focus on what you need to learn, starting from simple topics and progressing with practice on English texts, you will leap ahead within one year.

The choices you are making at the moment are not helping you improve. Isn't there a fundamental concept, that works when you are trying to educate yourself, just as it works with anything else?:-

If it isn't working, troubleshoot, see what you are doing wrong, and try a different way.

You are looking for excuses - teachers are bad, the language is illogical, grammar texts disagree.
Maybe that is true, but does saying that help you learn? I am sure someone from where you are from, of all places, should know that things are not easy and not fair, in a way none of us can understand. But this is about you, and what you can do to educate yourself effectively.
Sorry if this sounds mean - it is a New Year's kick up the backside. Everybody should have one sometimes.


palapaguy
Posted: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 12:54:25 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 1,010
Neurons: 10,059
Location: Calabasas, California, United States
Well stated, motivational, and TRUE!!

Thank you.
A cooperator
Posted: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 9:25:02 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,784
Neurons: 10,062
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
thar wrote:
You cannot use grammar from one language to model sentences in such an unrelated language. You must know that,in your heart.

What you need to look at is how this idea is expressed in English.

Have you looked at any other sentences like this in English, in simp!e texts?

What words do they use?



As has been said - you are trying to jump straight to the results without doing the basic work reading texts in the language you are trying to learn.


It is the start of a new year in the English calendar.
I challenge you, thus year, to do something new.

Commit to working intelligently and with a plan, to learn English.
- Using English texts and video designed specially for learners, in a structured progression.

I challenge you to stop reading advanced grammar books, and get out of the hole that is keeping you trapped and learning so slowly.

I predict that if you focus on what you need to learn, starting from simple topics and progressing with practice on English texts, you will leap ahead within one year.

The choices you are making at the moment are not helping you improve. Isn't there a fundamental concept, that works when you are trying to educate yourself, just as it works with anything else?:-

If it isn't working, troubleshoot, see what you are doing wrong, and try a different way.

You are looking for excuses - teachers are bad, the language is illogical, grammar texts disagree.
Maybe that is true, but does saying that help you learn? I am sure someone from where you are from, of all places, should know that things are not easy and not fair, in a way none of us can understand. But this is about you, and what you can do to educate yourself effectively.
Sorry if this sounds mean - it is a New Year's kick up the backside. Everybody should have one sometimes.




Many thanks Thar-, Palapaguy,

I am really most surprised how you improved your English to such an excellent extent while you, I mean Thar-, in particular, are not a native English speaker.
Have you utilized your native language to help master English?

I want you to confirm for me if English is very forgettable or not, in particular for those living in where English is rarely spoken.
If you had to assess what my level in English now is(i.e. how good I am in English.)?, then what percentage would my level have been assessed at?

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 3:34:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,784
Neurons: 10,062
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
Fyfardens wrote:
The verb BE almost always requires some form of subject complement, normally a noun, pronoun or adjective.

The well-known English translation of cogito ergo sum, I think, therefore I am (=I exist) is a rare exception to the normal practice.


Yes, and a few stock phrases such as "It was not meant to be" (i.e. it was not destined), or "Let him be" (i.e. leave him alone).


Audiendus,
Would you mind telling me if you mean in your examples above that "to be" is also not followed by any form of subject complement.


Although I read in linking verbs section,
the liking verbs, (copula verbs) are special kinds of verbs used to join an adjective or noun complement to a subject. Common examples are: be (is, am, are, was, were), appear, seem, look, sound, smell, taste, feel, become.
However, I sometimes see linking verbs are not followed by any form of subject complement. (Adjective or complement noun). However, they are followed by infinitive.
The president is to visit Nigeria next month.
Ann didn’t seem very pleased.
It seemed as if the end of the world had come.
The rainbow seemed to end on the hillside.

As a result,
1) I think these verbs cannot be linking verbs if they are NOT followed by any form of subject complement(An adjective or complement noun).

2) some verbs can be used as linking verbs or as non-linking verbs. if they are followed by any form of subject complement (an adjective or a complement noun), they are used as linking verbs, but other than this, if they are followed by a preposition, infinitive, or that- clause, or none as("it was not meant to be", "let him be"), they are non-linking verbs.

3) I saw you saying that "exist" and "be" are interchangeable. However, "be" is linking verb which requires a form of subject complement. Exist", on the other hand, is NOT linking verb, but it is intransitive ordinary verb, which doesn't need any form of subject complement. It conveys a complete meaning with its subject.
Thus, "I think, therefore I exist" is correct. However, "I think, therefore I am." is wrong since "to be" needs to followed by form of subject complement.

4) if "I think, therefore I am." was correct("am" isn't followed by any form of subject complement), then what would preclude "If the war continued, then annihilation would be." from being correct?
Or you think my sentence is wrong not because "to be" isn't followed by any form of subject complement? However, it is wrong due to the reason NKM mentioned to below
"Annihilation is not something which is or "is there"; it is something that happens."
If so, then how could NKM directly hit on that clever idea, however, I even wasn't thinking in that way at all? If I had been faced with other words like this one, then how would I have realised this idea?


5) I read that "to be" never has an object, then what we can call "astronomical body" in the sentence below? I think it is an identifier.
The Moon is an astronomical body that orbits planet Earth, being Earth's only permanent natural satellite."


Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 8:01:43 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 4,973
Neurons: 870,452
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
Audiendus wrote:
Fyfardens wrote:
The verb BE almost always requires some form of subject complement, normally a noun, pronoun or adjective.

The well-known English translation of cogito ergo sum, I think, therefore I am (=I exist) is a rare exception to the normal practice.


Yes, and a few stock phrases such as "It was not meant to be" (i.e. it was not destined), or "Let him be" (i.e. leave him alone).

Audiendus,
Would you mind telling me if you mean in your examples above that "to be" is also not followed by any form of subject complement.


Yes, that is correct.

(I will leave the rest of your post for others to answer.)
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 8:21:30 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 29,427
Neurons: 169,652
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Just so you don't forget -
Fyfardens said that "I think, therefore I am" is a rare exception.
Audiendus gave two examples - and said that they were 'stock phrases' (which, being idiomatic, do not always follow normal grammar-patterns).

Don't try to invent a new 'rule' that "The verb 'BE' can be used intransitively whenever you want" - it is not true.

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
NKM
Posted: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 11:02:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/14/2015
Posts: 4,654
Neurons: 242,831
Location: Corinth, New York, United States
A cooperator wrote:

First of all, do you think that there are other synonyms for "Annihilation" which are somethings which are or are there?


══════════════════════════════════════════════

"Chaos" and "mayhem" come to mind.

A cooperator
Posted: Thursday, January 4, 2018 7:12:05 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,784
Neurons: 10,062
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Just so you don't forget -
Fyfardens said that "I think, therefore I am" is a rare exception.
Audiendus gave two examples - and said that they were 'stock phrases' (which, being idiomatic, do not always follow normal grammar-patterns).

Don't try to invent a new 'rule' that "The verb 'BE' can be used intransitively whenever you want" - it is not true.

Thank you all of you, Drag0nspeaker, Audiendus,NKM
Yea, I gotcha.
As a conclusion, Could anyone take some of your precious time out to address these points of mine below?
Firstly) 'to be' is always a linking verb. Therefor, it must always be followed by any form of subject complements.
But, there are rare exceptions, in which 'to be' isn't a linking verb, which you highlight here. No other exceptions left.
1)"It was not meant to be" (i.e. it was not destined),
2)"Let him be" (i.e. leave him alone). ---- "Let me be"(i.e. leave me alone) can be correct.
3) I think, therefore I am.


Secondly) If 'to be' is followed by 'infinitive', then it is still used as a linking verb, although there is no form of subject complement(adjective or a noun complement) following it.
The president is to visit Nigeria next month.

Thirdly: some verbs can be used as linking verbs or as non-linking verbs. if they are followed by any form of subject complement (an adjective or a complement noun), they are used as linking verbs. However, if they are followed by a preposition, infinitive, or that- clause, they are non-linking verbs.

It seemed as if the end of the world had come.
The rainbow seemed to end on the hillside.

Fourthly) Do you meant that 'exist' is synonym to 'be' when 'be' is used as non-linking verb in those rare exceptions??? If Yes, then I now see "I think, therefore I exist" and "I think, therefore I am." are interchangeable.

If not, then I saw you saying that "exist" and "be" are interchangeable. However, "be" is a linking verb which requires a form of subject complement. "Exist", on the other hand, is NOT a linking verb, but it is intransitive ordinary verb, which neither does need any form of subject complement, nor does need an object. It conveys a complete meaning with its subject.
How am I going to exist without you

Fifthly) There are other synonyms for 'exit', which are "live, be alive, be living, be, happen"
Then,
"I think, therefore I exist"
"I think, therefore I am."
"I think, therefore I live"
"I think, therefore I be alive"
"I think, therefore I be living
"I think, therefore I happen"



Sixthly) You think that "If the war continued, then annihilation would be." is incorrect since "Annihilation is not something which is or "is there"; it is something that happens.", and not since 'to be' is not followed by any form of subject complement?

If not, then "If the war continued, then annihilation would be." is correct as long as "I think, therefore I am." is correct("am" isn't followed by any form of subject complement)



Finally) I read that "to be" never has an object, then what we can call "astronomical body" in the sentence below? I think it is an identifier which is functioning as the subject of the relative clause, which the relative pronoun 'that' refers to.
The Moon is an astronomical body that orbits planet Earth, being Earth's only permanent natural satellite."


Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Thursday, January 4, 2018 7:31:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,784
Neurons: 10,062
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
NKM wrote:
A cooperator wrote:

First of all, do you think that there are other synonyms for "Annihilation" which are somethings which are or are there?


══════════════════════════════════════════════

"Chaos" and "mayhem" come to mind.



Thanks a lot,
Then, "If the war continued, then mayhem/Chaos would be." would be correct.

How could you directly hit on that clever idea "Annihilation is not something which is or "is there"; it is something that happens."? However, I even wasn't thinking in that way at all? If I had been faced with other words like this one, then how would I have realised this idea?


Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Thursday, January 4, 2018 7:40:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,784
Neurons: 10,062
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Fyfardens wrote:


The first is simply wrong,
The second is possible if we assume that 'it' refers to situation resulting from the war.
The third would require a very contrived context.
The fourth is OK.



Thanks a lot, Fyfardens

If the war continued, it would be annihilation. --- It is possible if we assume that 'it' refers to situation resulting from the war.

If the war continued, annihilation would be there. --It requires a very contrived context.??????(I don't know what it needs more, for instance)

If the war continued, there would be annihilation. --- It is OK.

As long as 'it' and 'there' are dummy subjects(not real subjects), then I think the explanation would be the same for both sentences:
If the war continued, it would be annihilation. - It is possible if we assume that 'it' refers to situation resulting from the war.

If the war continued, there would be annihilation. - It is possible if we assume that 'there' refers to situation resulting from the war.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Thursday, January 4, 2018 8:01:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 29,427
Neurons: 169,652
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Firstly
Yes - "be" must always be followed by a subject complement in normal sentences of the form: Subject + be + complement.
Grass is green.
Cats are animals.

But, there are rare exceptions.

Secondly
"Be + infinitive" is a verb form expressing future necessity.
It is one form of the imperative.
I would say 'be' is an auxiliary verb in that case.
You are to come home before eleven tonight.

In other contexts, "be + infinitive" is used as a future-tense-form, expressing a definitely-planned prediction.
The president is to visit Nigeria next month.
The trip is planned and fully set up. It will happen.
I would say 'be' is an auxiliary verb in that case.

Thirdly
Your statement seems correct.
There may be exceptions.

Fourthly
You seem to be equating "synonyms" with "interchangeable words" - they are not always the same thing.

synonym n
1. (Linguistics) a word that means the same or nearly the same as another word, such as bucket and pail


Sometimes (in some sentences), "be" and "exist" can be interchanged.

"I think, therefore I exist" and "I think, therefore I am." are interchangeable.
However, "I think, therefore I am" is the most common translation, so "exist" sounds strange and so unnatural.

EDITED to add:

The synonym of a synonym is not necessarily a synonym of the original word.

For example:
One synonym of the word "a buffet" is "a spank" - (an instance of hitting someone)
Another synonym of "a buffet" is "a box" - (an instance of hitting someone)

However, "a spank" is not a synonym of "a box".
You can give someone a box on the ear, but you cannot give someone a spank on the ear.
You can spank a chird on the leg, but you cannot box a child on the leg.


Fifthly
Yes - there are several words which mean almost the same as 'exist' in some circumstances.
In some sentences, they may possibly be exchanged for 'be'- but they do not work in the sentence "I think, therefore I am."

Sixthly
I don't understand what you mean. I don't understand your logic at all.

Se your "firstly" above. "Be" is a linking verb except in a few very special phrases. This is not one of those exceptions.

Finally
"An astronomical body" is a noun-phrase.
It is part of the longer noun-phrase "an astronomical body that orbits planet Earth", which is the subject complement in the sentence:
"The Moon is an astronomical body that orbits planet Earth."
Subject - copula - subject complement


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
NKM
Posted: Thursday, January 4, 2018 10:56:05 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/14/2015
Posts: 4,654
Neurons: 242,831
Location: Corinth, New York, United States
A cooperator wrote:
NKM wrote:
A cooperator wrote:

First of all, do you think that there are other synonyms for "Annihilation" which are somethings which are or are there?


══════════════════════════════════════════════

"Chaos" and "mayhem" come to mind.



Thanks a lot,
Then, "If the war continued, then mayhem/Chaos would be." would be correct.

How could you directly hit on that clever idea "Annihilation is not something which is or "is there"; it is something that happens."? However, I even wasn't thinking in that way at all? If I had been faced with other words like this one, then how would I have realised this idea?

══════════════════════════════════════════════

No!

Either I misunderstood your question or you misunderstood my answer.

"Chaos" and "mayhem" are like "annihilation" — they would not correctly be used that way.

A cooperator
Posted: Saturday, January 6, 2018 8:49:23 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,784
Neurons: 10,062
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
Audiendus wrote:
Fyfardens wrote:
The verb BE almost always requires some form of subject complement, normally a noun, pronoun or adjective.

The well-known English translation of cogito ergo sum, I think, therefore I am (=I exist) is a rare exception to the normal practice.


Yes, and a few stock phrases such as "It was not meant to be" (i.e. it was not destined), or "Let him be" (i.e. leave him alone).

Audiendus,
Would you mind telling me if you mean in your examples above that "to be" is also not followed by any form of subject complement.


Yes, that is correct.

(I will leave the rest of your post for others to answer.)


Thanks a lot, Audiendus,
But, today I noticed:
"This opportunity is destined for all countries.", which, as you said, will be equated/equivalent to "This opportunity is meant to be for all countries."
Then, there is a complement following 'to be' in 'is meant to be', which is "for all countries."

If 'for all countries', above, is just a prepositional phrase, and not acting as a complement following 'to be' to let it be used as linking verb, then We cannot say 'to be' is followed by a complement which is "discussed "Its final status is meant to be discussed in the latter stages of peace talks."


Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Saturday, January 6, 2018 11:52:17 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 4,973
Neurons: 870,452
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
But, today I noticed:
"This opportunity is destined for all countries.", which, as you said, will be equated/equivalent to "This opportunity is meant to be for all countries."

No, that is not what I said. I said that "It was not meant to be" (as a complete phrase, without a complement) is a stock phrase - an idiom - meaning "it was not destined" (i.e. God/fate did not mean it to happen). This is quite different from the phrase "meant to be for all countries", which means "intended to be for all countries", and has nothing to do with being 'destined'.

"This opportunity is destined for all countries" does not make much sense to me. Where did you see it?

A cooperator wrote:
Then, there is a complement following 'to be' in 'is meant to be', which is "for all countries."

Yes, that is correct.
A cooperator
Posted: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 8:33:08 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,784
Neurons: 10,062
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
But, today I noticed:
"This opportunity is destined for all countries.", which, as you said, will be equated/equivalent to "This opportunity is meant to be for all countries."

No, that is not what I said. I said that "It was not meant to be" (as a complete phrase, without a complement) is a stock phrase - an idiom - meaning "it was not destined" (i.e. God/fate did not mean it to happen). This is quite different from the phrase "meant to be for all countries", which means "intended to be for all countries", and has nothing to do with being 'destined'.


Thanks a lot,
"It was not meant to be" (as a complete phrase, without a complement) is a stock phrase - an idiom - meaning "it was not destined"
I fairly think I am now understanding well.
What an exciting when a learner understands an idiom in another language as what is used to be said in his/her language!
Why were you not rich until now although you had realy hardly worked and excelled yourself?
I am just guessing in what situation/occasion that idiom can be said
It was not meant to be. --- This is what God wants to be.(God's will)
not everything is meant to be but everything is worth a try.



Quote:
"This opportunity is destined for all countries" does not make much sense to me. Where did you see it?

A cooperator wrote:
Then, there is a complement following 'to be' in 'is meant to be', which is "for all countries."

Yes, that is correct.


I found it at Mina7
If you see it doesn't make much sense to you, then you think that we can say one of these two ones below instead. I'd tend to say the first one.
This opportunity is meant to be for all countries.
This opportunity is supposed to be for all countries.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 8:39:22 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,784
Neurons: 10,062
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Drag0nspeaker wrote:


Finally
"An astronomical body" is a noun-phrase.
It is part of the longer noun-phrase "an astronomical body that orbits planet Earth", which is the subject complement in the sentence:
"The Moon is an astronomical body that orbits planet Earth."
Subject - copula - subject complement


Thanks a lot,
You don't think "an astronomical body that orbits planet Earth" is a defining relative clause instead of 'a longer noun phrase'
"an astronomical body" is modified by the relative clause "that orbits planet Earth." Where the relative pronoun 'that' as acting the subject of relative clause, and refers to "the subject complement".

If it was a noun-phrase, then "an astronomical body that orbits planet Earth" has subject and a verb. However, as far as I know that phrase don't have no verb, nor subject at all.
Also, if it was a noun clause, then a noun must precede the conjunction 'that' since in noun clause there is no a pronoun, but a conjunction.
Like in "The idea that even babies judge appearance makes perfect sense to many researchers." What is highlighted is a noun clause. I think.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.