sentence

[navi tasan]

Is this sentence correct:

Being treated badly by your bank doesn't have to be.

[Casiopea]

It's odd.

[M56]

It's odd.

Why?

[Casiopea]

What are your thoughts?

[M56]

What are your thoughts?

I see nothing wrong with it. It's simply using the expression, ellipted there, "this/that doesn't have to be this/that way".

[Casiopea]

Excellent addition, M56. I'm most certain Navi will appreciate your help.

[M56]

Excellent addition, M56. I'm most certain Navi will appreciate your help.

I hope so. Now, back to my original question: Why do you find it odd?

[navi tasan]

Thank you both,


It is good to have different veiwpoints on the same sentence. I have noticed that native speakers sometimes disagree about the sentences I come up with. In a way, that is encouraging too.

As to the issue at hand, I am not speaking for Cas, only for myself, but I find the sentence a bit weird too because I find this one weird:

2-Being treated badly by your bank is.

I guess #2 is grammatically correct as well. We can legitimately put "exists" instead of "is" and the sentence will become more palatable.

I think 2 is basically like my first sentence. The only difference is that my first sentences is a bit more complicated and this fact hides the "oddness"(if "oddness" there is).

3-Being treated badly by your bank has to be.
From one point of view, I find this extremely logical. It is a beautiful way of expressing the idea. From another point of view, I find it funny, not to say ridiculous.

4-Being treated badly by your bank doesn't have to be.

I wonder whether you find 2 and 3 weird or natural.

[Casiopea]

You're welcome.

I find this one weird:

[2] Being treated badly by your bank is.

I guess #2 is grammatically correct as well. We can legitimately put "exists" instead of "is" and the sentence will become more palatable.

Structure isn't grammaticallity, though. Just because a word meets the grammar's structural requirement doesn't make the sentence grammatical. Chomsky (1957) proved that with "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." It's grammatical structure-wise but its meaning is nonsensical, which makes it ungrammatical. Meaning plays a major role.

In [2], "is" and "exists" function in different ways. The former requires two arguments (a subject and its complement), whereas the latter is a one argument verb (it requires a subject), and it's synonymous with forms of BE:

One argument verb: They exist. ~ They are.
Two argument verb: They are _____.

In short, replace a two argument verb ("is") with a one argument verb ("exists") and the result is nonsensical. So, verb replacement isn't always a good test.

[navi tasan]

Thanks again Cas,

So you mean to say that colorless green ideas do not sleep furiously? How do they dream then?!!

No. No. Just kidding.

This is getting really interesting. I get your point and quite agree. I think in some cases "be" can be used to mean "exist", as in "I think therefore I am", but that is a usage that is really limited to philosophical texts. The way "be" is used In that sentence (which is the translation of a sentence in Latin) should be considered as "technical" and "jargonical" (I invented that word). In normal, everyday English, nobody says: "My car is." and I don't think anybody would say "My car doesn't have to be".

I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt to the sentence in my first question, but I agree with you that that sentence is at best odd, if not downright wrong. But maybe M56 would like to disagree.