+0
Please help me,I have severe problem with Would structure in english language.which one of the sentences below,are grammaticaly correct?!!!!!!!!!!!!please explain it why it is or whay not....

Reporter: tell me about the accident.

1.Police officer: Two people have been injured in the accident.I think they will survive.

2.Police officer: Two people have been injured in the accident.I think they will be survived.

3.Police officer: Two people have been injured in the accident.I think they would survive.

4.Police officer: Two people have been injured in the accident.I think they would be survived.

thanks alot

for further study about the would structure give me some advice.
+0
survive is intransitive in the meaning you're using here, so 2 and 4 are impossible.

would is the future of the past, and you have no past tense here, so only 1 is correct.

Two people have (present) been injured (passive perfect).
They will (future of the present) survive.


In the past:

Two people had (past) been injured (passive perfect).
They would (future of the past) survive.

CJ
1 2
Comments  
I have learnt from Marius and the others about the verb 'would'.

In your first sentence, you are somewhat sure that the people will survive. Probably the injuries they receive are not life threatining.

In your fourth sentence, you are guessing that the people will survive. It borders hypothesis. Probably they are unconscious due to the serious nature of the injuries.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
 CalifJim's reply was promoted to an answer.
CalfJim
I just looked at the dictionary. The word 'survive' is both transitive and intransitive.
How do you say it is transitive in this context?
How do you say it is transitive in this context?
Hi, Rotter,

I didn't say it was transitive; I said it was intransitive. Emotion: smile

They survived. = They did not die.

Does that clear up the problem?

CJ
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
CalifJim, I have a limited knowledge of analyzing these things.

Two people have been injured in the accident.I think they will be survived.
So in the above verb 'survived' is transitive.

To be transitive there should be an object; however, the verb 'survive' is naked. I mean there is no word after it.
Transitrive means there should be an object; no words follows the verb 'survived'.
I am waiting a reply from CalifJim. I hope he will see this sooner or later.
survive is like die in this context.

You can say: They have been injured and I think they will die.
Or you can say: They have been injured and I think they will survive. (they won't die).

Now a person can't die something (the way that you can throw something). So die is intransitive. (And throw is transitive.) The same applies to survive as to die. Both work the same way. Here survive means they are not going to die, so you can't say that they're not going to die something; that is, you can't say that they're going to survive something. They're just going to die; or they're just going to survive. Both die and survive are intransitive in these sentences.

>>>Any verb that is intransitive has no passive form -- no form with be.

A person can't "be died"; so a person can't "be survived" in the sense of "not be died". So all the sentences with be survived (above) are wrong because they are trying to use passive forms with verbs that have no passive forms.

CJ
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
I find it is difficult to digest everything CalifJim has written to explain me the point in question. I must read carefully again and again.

The verb 'die' is intransitive.

When you say someone died of cancer, I think the verb 'died' is transitive.

5. He died of cancer.
I am not sure.
Show more