Reply to "Inversion in comparative sentence"

I would like to say thanks to all of you. 

But  I have to admit there is still something that puzzles me. Would you be kind to clear it up for me? 

ahmedbtm posted:

Hi, Novice,

BTW, Using 'is' in your question above seems to me ungrammatical.

gustavocontributor posted:

Using 'is' in your question above seems to me ungrammatical.

I agree with you, Ahmed. There is an implicit main verb "is" that joins the subject "the area of forest" (I prefer "the forest area") with its adjectival complement "larger." The "is" before "destroyed" is a dependent verb and should be understood as forming part of a relative clause. Therefore, the sentence:

- As the forest area that is destroyed is larger, natural disasters occur more frequently.

can be transformed into this parallel comparative structure in which the main verb "is" will tend to be omitted (as is usually the case with the verb "be" in these structures):

- The larger the forest area that is destroyed (is), the more frequently natural disasters occur.

What we compare, Novice, is the large size of the forest area that is destroyed with the frequency of occurrence of natural disasters. If we want to compare the degree or extent of forest destruction with the frequency of natural disasters, then a comparative adverb that refers to "be destroyed" (rather than the comparative adjective "larger") will have to be used:

- The more the forest area is destroyed, the more frequently natural disasters occur. 

Thanks to Gustavocontributor, I can understand why Ahmedbtm said that "is" in my question was wrong. 

davidmoderator posted:
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.

But I can't understand why I can't say 

  • The more the forest area is destroyed, the more frequent natural disasters are. 
  • The more the forest area is destroyed, the more frequent are natural disasters
  • The more we destroy forests, the more natural disasters are
  • The more we destroy forests, the more are natural disasters
×
×
×
×