0
Taka Posted 18 years ago
Grammar
being
A modern political and industrial state was taking shape, characteristically Japanese in many features of its composition, but modeled on similar institutions in the West.
If I added 'being' in front of 'characteristically Japanese' as:
A modern political and industrial state was taking shape, being characteristically Japanese in many features of its composition, but modeled on similar institutions in the West.
would it still sound natural and make the same sense?
If I added 'being' in front of 'characteristically Japanese' as:
A modern political and industrial state was taking shape, being characteristically Japanese in many features of its composition, but modeled on similar institutions in the West.
would it still sound natural and make the same sense?
Top answer
It would sound wrong. You may use which was but it isn't so elegant as the original.
- It would sound wrong.
- You may use which was but it isn't so elegant as the original.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
11 Answers
0
It would sound wrong.
You may use
which was
but it isn't so elegant as the original.
You may use
which was
but it isn't so elegant as the original.
00
Marius HancuIt would sound wrong.But that 'which' doesn't refer to 'shape', does it?
You may use
which was
but it isn't so elegant as the original.
00
It's about state:
A modern political and industrial state was taking shape, which was characteristically Japanese
A modern political and industrial state was taking shape, which was characteristically Japanese
00
No. You don't want to make it a being clause. That suggests: since it was characteristically Japanese ... or because (of the fact that) it was characteristically Japanese ... which are inappropriate in this context, and change the meaning. And besides, a being clause typically occurs nearer the beginning of a sentence, not at the end.
The passengers, be
The passengers, be
00
CalifJimNo. You don't want to make it a being clause. That suggests: since it was characteristically Japanese ... or because (of the fact that) it was characteristically Japanese ... which are inappropriate in this context, and change the meaning. And besides, a being clause typically occurs nearer the beginning of a sentence, not at the e
00
Never say 'never'. Never say 'always'. 
Probably not 'always', no.
I imagine you have some counterexamples up your sleeve
Probably not 'always', no.
I imagine you have some counterexamples up your sleeve
00
I would agree with MH and CJ here; though in e.g. C17 English, you might find a "being" clause of this kind.
MrP
MrP
00
MrPedanticI would agree with MH and CJ here; though in e.g. C17 English, you might find a "being" clause of this kind.Right you are. I agree with you all. Participles are used in a myriad ways in English, and who's to say what is right and what isn't. English isn't the most exact of languages, which makes it all the more fascinating!
MrP
00
0
Related Questions