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.

  • 1
    The 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. Commented Dec 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...?
    – gggo
    Commented Dec 3, 2020 at 10:27
  • Yes, that is also wrong. Commented Dec 3, 2020 at 10:30
  • @Kate Bunting What about 'there is city destruction.
    – gggo
    Commented Dec 3, 2020 at 10:53
  • No. You can only speak of the destruction of the city as something that has happened. Commented Dec 3, 2020 at 11:00

1 Answer 1


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?
    – gggo
    Commented Dec 3, 2020 at 10:31
  • 1
    @gggo "The once wonderful and boisterous city is now reduced to ashes". Commented Dec 3, 2020 at 11:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .