I want to say 'the city is destroyed into ashes' more poetically and uniquely. Can I say 'the city is with destruction into ashes'? More specifically, there's no city because of destruction and just the ashes are left.
-
1The city is with destruction is not a valid English sentence. The city is destroyed or The city is reduced to ashes would be the usual way to say it.– Kate BuntingDec 3, 2020 at 10:20
-
@Kate Bunting Do you have an idea to express it in a more unique way? 'The city has destruction' may be also wrong...?– gggoDec 3, 2020 at 10:27
-
Yes, that is also wrong.– Kate BuntingDec 3, 2020 at 10:30
-
@Kate Bunting What about 'there is city destruction.– gggoDec 3, 2020 at 10:53
-
No. You can only speak of the destruction of the city as something that has happened.– Kate BuntingDec 3, 2020 at 11:00
1 Answer
You cannot say "destroyed into" at all. Nor can you say "the city is with destruction"
One could say "The city was destroyed. Nothing but ashes remains." or "The city was burnt to ashes." or "where the city once stood only a heap of ash remains."
-
Could you give me some expression including linking verb 'be,' not auxiliaries?– gggoDec 3, 2020 at 10:31
-
1@gggo "The once wonderful and boisterous city is now reduced to ashes". Dec 3, 2020 at 11:03