To repeat 'being'

(2) is not right.

(3) is OK.

Thanks.

Is there anyone out there who finds (2) acceptable?

I wouldn't consider #2 correct, but I wouldn't be too surprised to hear it in casual speech.

Blue JayI wouldn't consider #2 correct, but I wouldn't be too surprised to hear it in casual speech.

Hmm. I think I'd be surprised if I heard #2. I don't think anybody cuts off a clause after a linking verb, do they?

Well, I guess sometimes that does happen. I wonder why it sounds so bad here.

CJ

I've heard sentences like this, but it's more a case of adding being to I don't think they were rather than omitting unfair (I'm talking about the stress patterns here).
This past weekend some friends from MN were in town. They end sentences with with. "Do you have your phone with?" "We're going to the museum. Do you want to go with?" I'

Now, let me change the sentence a little bit.

(1') You said they were unfair, but I don't think they were being unfair.
(2') You said they were unfair, but I don't think they were being.
(3') You said they were unfair, but I don't think they were.

Now, which is better, (2') or (3')? (Both of which should be equivalent to (1') in meaning.)

2 is still inappropriate. 3 is fine. You could say something like "I don't think they were so", but not "I don't think they were being"; being cannot be used to reference the previous statement in the way that so can, it can only form the link to an actual word that describes again how they were being. You wouldn't even hear that as slang, like you would the example using "with" (which is more com

#1 and #3 are fine, but you don't want to use #2. I didn't say the original sentence was correct English, merely that it's the kind of slightly disjointed phrase you might hear in casual spoken English, where someone repeats the verb from the first part of the sentence but doesn't include the end of the sentence that should follow it. It's the kind of minor mistake you wouldn't pay any mind

Unlike in (1), now we don't have "being" in the first clause of sentence (1') and we do have "being" in the second. And if we try to use a short version without 'being' in the second clause as in (3'), I think (3') will be understood as a shortened form of (1) but not of (1').

But in (2'), awkward as it may sound, it is clear that "being" is intended in the second part of the sentence. So

Tanthalas the example using "with" (which is more commonly used than I think Blue Jay believes).

Yes, that could well be. I've noticed it in Minnesota, but it may be more widespread than that. I was just making the point that there are little quirks of speech out there that look odd written down, especially to someone unaccustomed to hearing them.