gustavocontributor posted:The "is" before "destroyed" is a dependent verb and should be understood as forming part of a relative clause.
Excellent point, Gustavo. I agree with both you and Ahmed_btm that the first part of Novice's example ("The larger the area of forest is destroyed") is ungrammatical, and that adding "that" or "which" after "forest" would render it grammatical. Interestingly, "that" can even be added after "larger":
- The larger that the area of forest that is destroyed is, . . . .
- (Read: The larger that it is, . . . .)
gustavocontributor posted:- The more the forest area is destroyed, the more frequently natural disasters occur.
I like that revision, Gustavo. If Novice wants to use inversion, auxiliary inversion would work. We simply need to add an auxiliary. We can use dummy "do" or shift to "will":
- The more (that) the forest area is destroyed, the more frequently do natural disasters occur.
- The more (that) the forest area is destroyed, the more frequently will natural disasters occur.
I myself would opt for a more radical revision. This double comparative construction is special and thrives off of simplicity and parallelism:
- The more we destroy forests, the more we will have natural disasters.
- The more we destroy forests, the more will we have natural disasters.
- More forest destruction means more natural disasters. ♣