be brought up v. be grown up v. be raised

[hhtt21]

Are the phrases i.e the phrasal verbs be brought up and be grown up and be raised identical in meaning?

1) Although, Roald Dahl's parents were Norwegian, he was born and brought up in Great Britain. (More Modern Short Stories For students of English)

2) He was born and raised in Genoa. (Christopher Columbus, Mariner)

3) He was born and grown up in Genoa. (My offer)

 

[jutfrank]

be grown up is not right because you can't say grow somebody up. Therefore, you can't use the passive be grown up. You need just the intransitive grow up. Look:

I was brought up in London.
I was born and raised in London.
I grew up in London.

 

[hhtt21]

be grown up is not right because you can't say grow somebody up. Therefore, you can't use the passive be grown up. You need just the intransitive grow up. Look:

1)I was brought up in London.
2) I was born and raised in London.
3) I grew up in London.

Why didn't you give them with "I was born"?

 

[hhtt21]

Your version is not acceptable. You could say "He was born and grew up in Genoa". I don't like it, but it's possible.

I think the phrase somebody grew up in somewhere is very common, maybe more common than "somebody brought up in somewhere" and "somebody raised in somewhere". So why don't you like it?

 

[jutfrank]

Use the verbs as follows:

to bring somebody up (Your parents brought you up.)
to raise somebody (Your parents raised you.)

to be born somewhere (You were born in Turkey.)
to grow up somewhere (You grew up in Istanbul.)

 

[hhtt21]

Use the verbs as follows:

to bring somebody up (Your parents brought you up.)
to raise somebody (Your parents raised you.)

to be born somewhere (You were born in Turkey.)
to grow up somewhere (You grew up in Istanbul.)

To be sure, is this wrong: "He brought up in Genoa"?

 

[emsr2d2]

To be sure, is this wrong: "He brought up in Genoa"?

Yes, that's wrong.

He was brought up in Genoa. (He was the child.)
He brought up his children in Genoa. (He was the parent.)

 

[hhtt21]

Yes, that's wrong.

He was brought up in Genoa. (He was the child.)
He brought up his children in Genoa. (He was the parent.)

In the case of Columbus, I confused these because of the ellipsis for "was" in "He was born and brought up in Genoa". The first was applies to the verb ​brought.

 

[hhtt21]

Your version is not acceptable. You could say "He was born and grew up in Genoa". I don't like it, but it's possible.

Do you mean the original, he was born and brought up, is idiomatic but the one, he was born and grew up, is not?

If somebody is brought up in somewhere, does this also automatically imply or reveal that he grew up there?

 

[GoesStation]

He was born and brought up in Genoa has a parallel structure: you can rewrite it as He was born in Genoa and He was brought up in Genoa. You can't do that if the second verb is grew up.

 

[hhtt21]

He was born and brought up in Genoa has a parallel structure: you can rewrite it as He was born in Genoa and He was brought up in Genoa. You can't do that if the second verb is grew up.

By chance this is the second time I have heard of parallel as a language term. But why can't we think of He was born and grew up in Genoa as He was born in Genoa and He grew up in Genoa? To me, the predicates, was born in Genoa and was grew up in Genoa goes parallel to each other, following the same subject he. ​Do you agree?

 

[jutfrank]

But why can't we think of He was born and grew up in Genoa as He was born in Genoa and He grew up in Genoa? To me, the predicates, was born in Genoa and was grew up in Genoa goes parallel to each other, following the same subject he. ​Do you agree?

No, because was grew up is not possible.

 

[hhtt21]

No, because was grew up is not possible.

Sorry, for the mistake. I wrongly asked the question. Please let me correct it.

But why can't we think of He was born and grew up in Genoa as He was born in Genoa and He grew up in Genoa? To me, the predicates, was born in Genoa and grew up in Genoa goes parallel to the each other, following the same subject he. ​Do you agree?

 

[GoesStation]

No. Any auxiliary verb becomes part of the left-hand structure, so to speak, and has to match up with an appropriate participle on the right-hand side.

 

[jutfrank]

Structures can only be parallel after the auxiliary. (In this case after was.)

 

[hhtt21]

He was born and grown up in Genoa. (My offer)

As a result, can I conclude that even though above structure may be possilbe it is unidiomatic because it doesn't use a parallel structure. Are parallel structures always necessary for this kind of combined sentences?

 

[YAMATO2201]

He was born and grown up in Genoa. (My offer)

As a result, can I conclude that even though above structure may be possilbe it is unidiomatic because it doesn't use a parallel structure. Are parallel structures always necessary for this kind of combined sentences?

I'm guessing you are asking about the sentence "He was born and grew up in Genoa".

 

[hhtt21]

Your version is not acceptable. You could say "He was born and grew up in Genoa". I don't like it, but it's possible.

As a result, can I conclude that even though above structure may be possilbe it is unidiomatic because it doesn't use a parallel structure. Are parallel structures always necessary for this kind of combined sentences?

 

[emsr2d2]

"He was born and grew up in Genoa" is perfectly natural in BrE. There is an implied/unspoken "he" before "grew up". I wouldn't call it unidiomatic.

 

[hhtt21]

Here is the original: 4."Daniel was brought up in a family in which the predominant values were respectability, honesty, discipline, orderliness and self-sufficiency."

Instead of the original are these correct and idiomatic?

5. "Daniel was raised up in a family in which the predominant values were respectability, honesty, discipline, orderliness and self-sufficiency."
6. "Daniel ​grew up in a family in which the predominant values were respectability, honesty, discipline, orderliness and self-sufficiency."