Equative sentences have the term to be identified first, a form of
BE, and then the term which identifies the first term.
The result is XYZ identifies the result in terms of XYZ; it specifies the result as XYZ.
XYZ is the result identifies XYZ as the result (as opposed to a cause, for example).
Compare:
The president of the club is Mrs. Smith identifies the president of the club as a position held by Mrs. Smith.
Mrs. Smith is the president of the club identifies Mrs. Smith by saying she is the president of the club.
____________
What will the result be if ... asks for the identifying information that specifies the result. (Inversion of
The result will be what?) (Ans:
The result will be ... if ...)
What will be the result if ... asks for the the entity being identified as the result. (Ans:
... will be the result if ...)
Compare:
Who will the president of the club be? (Ans:
The president of the club will be ...)
Who will be the president of the club? (Ans:
... will be the president of the club.)
In short, it somewhat depends on what order of terms you imagine in the expected answer.
In my opinion, the first is most commonly what we are asking, but the
difference is almost too subtle in many cases to be overly concerned
about it. I realize this is not your opinion, but I guess the
straggling
be doesn't bother me!*
![Smile [:)]](/emoticons/emotion-1.gif)
(The
Where will you be? case is different. It's not equative.
where is an adverb of location, so this is not a noun = noun situation.)
| *aren't they - strictly speaking - grammaticaly incorrect? |
|
I'm inclined to agree that they are grammatically incorrect, but the
exact speaker meaning can bend this a bit. Some flexibility in
interpretation is sometimes possible.
CJ