1: Most of the persons will be affected by this drug
2: Most of the persons will be getting affected by this drug
Can I use both to mean same??? I was reading about a particular drug and then I came across this.
Most of the persons will be affected by this drug
A drug is going to affect most people. This can mean the drug is affecting people who take it, people who are with people who take it, or other method of contact.
Most of the persons will be getting affected by this drug.
A drug will eventually affect most people when they encounter a situation where they will use it, but not until then. This is a somewhat clunky way of saying a drug will indirectly (or possibly passively - maybe like a nerve gas?) affect most people.
Typically the first one is what you want to use, unless there is a true level of indirection between people and the drug.
Neither is correct, and they do not mean the same.
Unless you can already make a special argument for it, never hold your breath waiting to hear a native speaker use “most of the persons”… or even “most persons.”
“Most of the persons will be affected by this drug” is both archaic and ambiguous. Who, if it was phrased differently, would be affected by the drug?
“Most of the persons…” does not mean “Most people…” Even “Most of the people…” would not mean “Most people…” except by an arithmetical coincidence, nothing to do with grammar.
“Most people…” would indeed mean the majority of the entire population.
“Most of the persons…” should say just “Most persons…” and neither means the majority of the entire population. Rather, both mean the majority of the members of some particular group, which needs to be specified.
“Most of the persons (in the hospital)…” appears to fit that bill but precisely because it means “Most of the members”, it doesn’t need another “of the”.
So, is the intention here that the drug will affect the majority of the entire population, or merely most of a defined group?
What does make no difference, whether most people or persons, most of the people or of the persons are affected, is what the effect will be, which partly depends on whether the “drug” is a medicine or a virulent poison.
An atomic bomb - and probably, a virulent poison - will certainly affect “most people” whether they are irradiated directly, or by contact with direct victims, or by some other method.
A medicinal drug is unlikely to do anything to anyone else, but will presumably affect “most of the people who take it directly”.
Most of the persons will be getting affected by this drug is too long to consider clearly. May we instead look at “Persons will be getting affected” and “People will be getting affected”?
Talking statistically about the general population collectively, “People” is correct.
Talking specifically about a number of individuals, rather than a group collectively, “Persons” is correct.
Either way, “getting affected by this drug” is a very strange construction semantically, even if might be acceptable grammatically.
“…will be affected…” earlier referred to a point in time, whenever that is.
If semantically, there’s any real difference between “getting” and “being”, I missed it. Certainly “…will be getting affected…” refers to a point in the future. Doesn’t “…will be being affected…” make that more clear?
Other than that tense-shifting, there should be no difference at all between “will be affected” and “will be getting affected”. Whatever the effect, direct or indirect, it is not changed by changing the time-frame.
If this is in the present or continuous then broadly, you need either “most people” if you mean the majority of the general population or “Most of the people (in a specific group)”.
If this is in the future then the only difference is that “be” becomes “be getting” and broadly, you still need either “most people” if you mean the majority of the general population or “Most of the people (in a specific group)”.