Verbal question you found somewhere else? General issue with idioms or grammar? Random verbal question? These questions belong here.
rte.sushil
Students
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:31 pm
 

various forms with verb be

by rte.sushil Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:51 am

i read in the GMC/S-V/parallelism chapter under topic concision that
GMAT will insist on that after most reports ......and be various forms with the verb be such

as be convinced , be certain, be assured etc.

Does it mean that that should come with verb if combined with be?
such as :-
You do not have to be convinced that this is happening

In short
be various forms with the verb be such as be convinced
, this line

means that "that" has to come with these verbs even they come with BE. But below examples

have no that with be _ verb_ .
examples: I could be convinced to try 'em.
Hong Kong's financial sector remains to be convinced by the benefits of Qianhai

So above examples are wrong, is "that" must whether "be" comes or not? i am confused what

is the exact point to note?
RonPurewal
Students
 
Posts: 19744
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
 

Re: various forms with verb be

by RonPurewal Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:17 am

rte.sushil Wrote:i read in the GMC/S-V/parallelism chapter under topic concision that
GMAT will insist on that after most reports ......and be various forms with the verb be such

as be convinced , be certain, be assured etc.

Does it mean that that should come with verb if combined with be?
such as :-
You do not have to be convinced that this is happening

In short
be various forms with the verb be such as be convinced
, this line

means that "that" has to come with these verbs even they come with BE. But below examples

have no that with be _ verb_ .
examples: I could be convinced to try 'em.
Hong Kong's financial sector remains to be convinced by the benefits of Qianhai

So above examples are wrong, is "that" must whether "be" comes or not? i am confused what

is the exact point to note?


the language of your post is rather difficult to follow, but i think i can tell what you're asking.

the problem here is that you're treating two different constructions -- which mean two completely different things -- as though they should follow the same principles.
i.e., "i was convinced that xxxx" and "i was convinced to + verb" are not the same thing, nor could they ever express the same idea.

* "i was convinced that xxxx" -- in which you need "that" -- is used when xxxx is some apparent fact, and i've become convinced of that apparent fact: i was convinced that the law was unjust.

* "i was convinced to + verb" is used when *i* was convinced to actually carry out the action of "verb": i was convinced to start a campaign against the law.

two totally different constructions; no sense in trying to relate them to one another.