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. – Kate Bunting Dec 3 '20 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 Dec 3 '20 at 10:27
  • Yes, that is also wrong. – Kate Bunting Dec 3 '20 at 10:30
  • @Kate Bunting What about 'there is city destruction. – gggo Dec 3 '20 at 10:53
  • No. You can only speak of the destruction of the city as something that has happened. – Kate Bunting Dec 3 '20 at 11:00

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 Dec 3 '20 at 10:31
  • 1
    @gggo "The once wonderful and boisterous city is now reduced to ashes". – Dhanishtha Ghosh Dec 3 '20 at 11:03

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.