Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching
Learnglish.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Discussion Groups / English Usage / April 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

To love and to be loved is/are the most...

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
datere - 30 Apr 2008 08:30 GMT
To be loved *is* the greatest happiness of life.

I know it is correct, but what if we have 2 subjects?

To love and to be loved *is* the greatest happiness of life.
To love and to be loved *are* the greatest happiness of life.

May I ask which verb should be used?

Thank you very much for your reply.
John Holmes - 30 Apr 2008 13:15 GMT
> To be loved *is* the greatest happiness of life.
>
> I know it is correct, but what if we have 2 subjects?

I disagree. "...of life" sounds wrong; "in life" would be better.

> To love and to be loved *is* the greatest happiness of life.
> To love and to be loved *are* the greatest happiness of life.
>
> May I ask which verb should be used?

It depends on what you mean.

The first treats the two things as linked reciprocal parts of the one
thing.

The second treats them as two separate things, that could be independent
sources of happiness. But it sounds odd because you are equating two
things to a singular "happiness". Try something like "...are the
greatest joys in life" instead.

Signature

Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au

Don Phillipson - 30 Apr 2008 14:19 GMT
> To be loved *is* the greatest happiness of life.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> May I ask which verb should be used?

1.  As you know by now, English has almost no prescriptive
rules that dictate what word we ought to use.
2.  Many of your questions are among those discussed at
length in the classic literature on usage, e.g. Fowler's
Modern English Usage and the Chicago Manual of Style.
You would enjoy both these items.

Signature

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Pat Durkin - 30 Apr 2008 15:15 GMT
> To be loved *is* the greatest happiness of life.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> May I ask which verb should be used?

In the second example, you are separating the loving into two different
things.  It can be done, if that is your wish.  However, my sense is
that you should then itemize "happiness" to "happinesses".

We do indicate some things as "joys", you know, if you need a shorter
word.  There was a Brando film "The Inn of the 6th Happiness".  I never
did hear what all the particular happinesses were--a specific kind of
sexual giving?  Or maybe purchasing? Or enjoying?  I think it bored me
silly, so maybe it was where a lot of starving people sat around making
other people happy who would come and feed them, or bathe, etc.

I can recall a discussion in catechism class.  God loves the poor, the
sick, the dying and gives them to us so we can earn our way into heaven
by good works, although we all need to be reminded that good works alone
don't cut it.
Pat Durkin - 30 Apr 2008 15:38 GMT
>> To be loved *is* the greatest happiness of life.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> We do indicate some things as "joys", you know, if you need a shorter
> word.  There was a Brando film "The Inn of the 6th Happiness".

Oops!  I double checked to see if maybe it was a different Hollywood
hero type, but no.  It was the wrong movie.  The film in question
entitled "The Inn etc" was that migration of children in China, and
starred Ingrid Bergman and Curt Jurgens.  Now that I recall that, I seem
to remember that it was that film where I first heard "This old man"

(6th Happiness did star Brando)
> I
> never did hear what all the particular happinesses were--a specific
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> heaven by good works, although we all need to be reminded that good
> works alone don't cut it.
Don Phillipson - 30 Apr 2008 19:54 GMT
> We do indicate some things as "joys", you know, if you need a shorter
> word.  There was a Brando film "The Inn of the 6th Happiness".  I never
> did hear what all the particular happinesses were--a specific kind of
> sexual giving?  Or maybe purchasing? Or enjoying?  I think it bored me
> silly, so maybe it was where a lot of starving people sat around making
> other people happy who would come and feed them, or bathe, etc.

This was a British film, made in 1959, starring Ingrid Bergman,
about a working-class English girl determined to become a
missionary in China.   The 6th Happiness is a Chinese literary
reference, as is normal in titles, cf. Ingmar Bergman's film The 7th
Seal (citing the Book of Revelations.)  No doubt the Chinese
literary reference was explained in the film script.

Signature

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Pat Durkin - 30 Apr 2008 23:09 GMT
>> We do indicate some things as "joys", you know, if you need a shorter
>> word.  There was a Brando film "The Inn of the 6th Happiness".  I
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Seal (citing the Book of Revelations.)  No doubt the Chinese
> literary reference was explained in the film script.
As happens all too often with my brain, I confused one film with
another.

The Brando film was "Teahouse of the August Moon", and that was the one
I meant to refer to.  After my other post, I tried to cancel some
message in which I once more asserted "The Inn, etc." but things got all
screwed up.

I can recall the Bergman/Jurgens film.  I enjoyed it, but I don't recall
a definition of the 6th happiness  It may have been defined in the
biography on which the film was based.  I didn't much care for the
Brando one.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.