1

I read a sentence from a book.

Clearly that should not render an encryption scheme insecure, and so any viable definition must somehow rule out such behavior as being a successful attack.

Among these clauses, I am confused by the last clause "any viable definition must somehow rule out such behavior as being a successful attack."

Will a meaning of the whole sentence change if I omit this word "being"?
I don't know why the word "being" needs to exist in this clause.

1
  • 1
    No, to omit being does not change the meaning. It signifies to be regarded/described as and does not change the sense of the statement. Sep 10, 2021 at 9:12

1 Answer 1

0

Welcome to English Language Learners.

Removing the word 'being' will get the same idea across to the listener but it changes the style of the sentence in a way I can't quite describe. If you use 'being' in the sentence it sounds more academic. I think that if you want to master different styles of English other than a vernacular style it would be well worth your while to try to understand how the word 'being' supports the idea being expressed and learn how to use it in similar sentences.

To my mind, when you use 'being' you're saying it can't be thought of as a successful attack, but you're not saying how it can be thought of instead. On the other hand, if you don't use 'being' you're more clearly saying that it is an unsuccessful attack rather than a successful one.

1
  • okay, thanks for your comment. I got the difference between them.
    – asdfjoe
    Sep 11, 2021 at 14:46

You must log in to answer this question.

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