meant to

[Bushwhacker]

In this sentence:

Heroes meant to always accept an adverse fate.

The idea is "heroes who are forced to face an adverse fate always"

Is this caught by my sentence?

Is "to always accept" correct?

Do you think "meant to" is properly used?

Is ENglish the sentence?

Thanks

 

[Teia]

In this sentence:

Heroes meant to always accept an adverse fate.

The idea is "heroes who are forced to face an adverse fate always"

Is this caught by my sentence?

Is "to always accept" correct?

Do you think "meant to" is properly used?

Is English the sentence?

Thanks

Hi!
I would say:

Heroes are always meant to accept an adverse fate. or,

Heroes are meant to always accept an adverse fate. - placing the adverb there, the speaker emphasizes or underlines the idea that there is in heroes` nature to always accept an adverse fate.

They are destined or doomed or predestined to accept an adverse fate; their destiny is always governed by fate.

 

[Bushwhacker]

Hi!
I would say:

Heroes are always meant to accept an adverse fate. or,

Heroes are meant to always accept an adverse fate. - placing the adverb there, the speaker emphasizes or underlines the idea that there is in heroes` nature to always accept an adverse fate.

They are destined or doomed or predestined to accept an adverse fate; their destiny is always governed by fate.

Thank You very much for you kind and useful answer. But I must say I'm not referring to all heroes, but a few ones forced to always face adversity as a condemnation. Could it works:

Heroes who are meant to accept an always adverse fate.

Does "always" between "an" and "adverse" emphasizes the idea of "these heroes (and not others) condemned to face eternal adversity.

Thank You

 

[Teia]

Thank You very much for you kind and useful answer. But I must say I'm not referring to all heroes, but a few ones forced to always face adversity as a condemnation. Could it works:

Heroes who are meant to accept an always adverse fate.

Does "always" between "an" and "adverse" emphasizes the idea of "these heroes (and not others) condemned to face eternal adversity.

Thank You

Hi

I understand your question. In my opinion, heroes are always heroes no matter who they are or how many they are.
Now, to answer your question, I would put it some other way: to emphasize the idea you want, I would write:

Those /These heroes who are meant to accept always an adverse fate / or
Heroes who are meant to always accept an adverse fate. - stronger emphasis

I wouldn`t place an adverb [ always in our case] between an article and a noun. Adverbs are usually placed next to verbs.
or, merely change the adverb and use an adjective to emphasize the idea:

Heroes who are meant to accept a continuous adverse fate.

Let`s think of a better adjective than continuous. The sentence does not sound so English in my opinion, but more Latin.

I think I found a more interesting and useful word for that:

Heroes who are meant to accept an endless adverse fate.

Does it sound better? What do you think?

 

[bertietheblue]

Eg

'Heroes who must accept the inevitability of an adverse fate.'

 

[Teia]

Eg

'Heroes who must accept the inevitability of an adverse fate.'

Much better! That`s the advantage of being a native teacher or speaker!

 

[Bushwhacker]

Eg

'Heroes who must accept the inevitability of an adverse fate.'

Thanks, but I have a doubt here. If we use "must" that would denote a certain obligation in a sense that depends on heroes' will. What I want to express is that doom is out there. They are forced to accept adverse fate because there is no way, it is a tragic destiny, it is not a matter of choice. Yes, you use "inevitability" but even so... "Being meant to", if I'm not wrong, seems to mean "being pushed to." What do you think, please?

Thanks for your interest

 

[Bushwhacker]

Much better! That`s the advantage of being a native teacher or speaker!

If, as you say, "to always accept" is correct, what do you think on this:

Heroes who are meant to always accept an adverse fate. ?

That opens another doubt of mine. I begun this post with the sentence

Heroes meant to always accept an adverse fate.

Does English always need to be specific? Along all this post it seems that it is always required to write the whole idea. I've added "who are" in this one, my latest proposal. My initial sentence was "Heroes meant to..." without "who are" because I thought it was already implicit. And it seems that's not possible in order to make the sentence clear, understandable.

What do you think?

Thanks

 

[bertietheblue]

Thanks, but I have a doubt here. If we use "must" that would denote a certain obligation in a sense that depends on heroes' will. What I want to express is that doom is out there. They are forced to accept adverse fate because there is no way, it is a tragic destiny, it is not a matter of choice. Yes, you use "inevitability" but even so... "Being meant to", if I'm not wrong, seems to mean "being pushed to." What do you think, please?

Thanks for your interest

No, 'must' is fine. There is no sense that they have any freedom of choice.