4.2. PARTICLES 165to ”to be” when we use rather than , so there is a definite choice to be
made which particle suits our need best. Another example is the verb
, which means ”to think” when used with , but ”to think about” when
used with.
Hopefully you spoĴed what happens here: rather than the verb and
the direct object being distinct things, using unifies the verb and thing it
works with into something that means something different from the sum
of the parts. For instance, you cannot split up ”to be [X]” into ”to be” and
”X” without changing the meaning of the verb. The same goes for ”to think
about [X]”, or ”to consider [X] something”, or ”to dream about [...]”. While
it is easier to explain as a series of separate things for all these different
verbs, it’s really doing the exact same thing for all of them, even though
there is no simple rule of Western grammar that we can map it to so that it
makes sense given what we know from our own every day language use.
To make maĴers even worse, we’re not there yet. One more thing
that does is act as a logical consequence. We already saw acting as
logical ’or’, and is basically the logical ’and’ equivalent. If we want to
express that two things are simultaneously the case, we would use :
”For airplanes, the idea is that if you’re late, you can’t board.”
literally: ”for airplanes (rather than something else): if you’re late,
you can’t board.”It is easy to mistake what happens in this sentence for just anif A,
then B, so let’s look at what this sentence is doing before illustrating this use
of with a more drastic example. Airplanes, with their strict schedules,
have a very simple rule, being that if you are late for the flight, then too
bad for you. The plane doesn’t wait for people. As such, ”being late” and
”not being allowed on the plane” are simultaneously true. The moment
you are late, immediately and irrevocably you are also unable to board.
We can make this more obvious with the promised more drastic example:”If my friend gets fired, I quit.”Here, it is crucially important to notice the , and realise that we’re
talking about simultaneous actions. This sentence does not say ”if my
friend gets fired, I shall give my two weeks notice”, it says that right there
and then, the moment he gets fired, you’re quiĴing. It also doesn’t leave