This quesion here was recently closed as a duplicate:

It was closed as a duplicate of this question here:

The second question has an excellent answer addressing the difference between the present simple and the present continuous and how the idiom be kind to somebody repeesents an action.

The Original Poster in the first question here, however, seems to have a narrower focus, namely why do we need two BEs here? If you speak English, this question is difficult to appreciate. However, it is a reasonable question. In many languages a sentence such as she is kind to me would have NO verb BE at all.

The question of why we need two BEs in such a sentence is therefore pertinent and useful for other readers. Could we reopen this question please?

  • 1
    I agree. If anything, it's more a duplicate of questions such as these: ell.stackexchange.com/questions/48415/…, ell.stackexchange.com/questions/124108/…. Apr 10 '17 at 9:03
  • @TeacherKSHuang Not really, I don't think. The first one there is about the fact that HURT like the verb BOIL has a different meaning depending on whether it's transitive or intransitive. The second is about the fact that we don't normally use the continuous with stative verbs - but there are edge cases. So I don't think any of those are dupes of the other two! They're 3 different question!!!! :-) Apr 10 '17 at 9:37
  • Hmmm, are you sure? I understand that the OP asked why there's a second "be" verb, but this is actually not the issue. The issue is why the stative verb, "be," is using "-ing." Explained in this context, it should become clear to us that it's not actually a second "be" verb, but rather, that "is" and "being" are expressing the same idea in two different, but complementary ways. It's like when there's a sentence, "had had." The two "hads" are expressing the same thing, but since each is doing it in its own way, both are necessary. Apr 10 '17 at 10:12
  • @TeacherKSHuang That's the issue for you, but not for them! Apr 10 '17 at 10:13
  • To be fair, none of it is an issue for me. But it is an issue for the OP because the OP is approaching the issue from the wrong angle. We need to help the OP to stop thinking of it as "double linking verb 'be'" and to start thinking of it as "linking verb 'be' and 'gerund 'be.'" Apr 10 '17 at 10:17
  • @TeacherKSHuang The participle be is the linking be, isn't it?! (But anyhow, that's pretty much what I put in my post - so we kind of agree). Apr 10 '17 at 10:22
  • Well, I would say that it merits re-opening so that it can be marked as a duplicate of the correct question, but either way, you're right, I do agree for it to be re-opened. Apr 10 '17 at 10:26
  • 3
    @Teacher Just so you know, we don't need to reopen it to change the duplicate. We can edit the list of duplicates now (SE added a new feature)
    – ColleenV
    Apr 10 '17 at 13:53
  • @ColleenV I thought that feature was only for users who single-handedly closed questions as dupes. The so-called dupe hammer, in this case wouldn't it be up to the mods to change the "original/older" question?
    – Mari-Lou A
    Apr 11 '17 at 7:32
  • +1 for new features. Thanks, @ColleenV. Apr 11 '17 at 7:44
  • @Mari-LouA I thought 10k+ users might be able to do it, but I'm not sure. Luckily, I know a moderator who would be willing to edit the question if the community found better options ;) I found the MSE discussion and you're right about the gold badge holders: meta.stackexchange.com/q/291824
    – ColleenV
    Apr 11 '17 at 11:36
  • 1
    I saw that there were 4 votes to reopen, so I went ahead and cast the final one.
    – ColleenV
    Apr 13 '17 at 14:06
  • @ColleenV Thanks :) Apr 13 '17 at 14:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .