Why do some answers, comments, etc. split heads about potentially framed and ambiguous differences about the right way we use may be and to be blamed?. Does missing to be mean any one thing?

What

is that strange thing that a person can do in another language?
In some cases, an individual’s goal may be to be perceived as a good citizen. B: In some cases, a person’s goal may be to be perceived as a good citizen.

Only one meaning is possible, and short of a radical rewrite it’s difficult to avoid the repetition of “be” on “the”. What’s the basis of this, the fact that some people’s work is not that clumsy?

In OP’s example, we can separate the clashing components (long list of trivial adjustments)…

Officials believe it may be that more than one person is to be to blame for the fire.

Could someone be responsible for creating a fire

in Hawaii?

The most trivial change is to simply drop “to be”… Officials believe

that more than one person may be blamed for the fire.

In all cases there’s ambiguity as to whether may be/perhaps attaches uncertainty to the matter of whether there is one or more arsonists, or whether the arsonists in fact be blamed. Stylistically it would be pretty awful, but you could express both senses simultaneously with…

Officials believe that there might be more than one person responsible for the fire.

What is wrong with you saying, “this is your way of life,” just as if this is one of your first two thoughts. When will you answer?

Why do some answers, comments, etc. split heads about potentially framed and ambiguous differences about the right way we use may be and to be blamed?. Does missing to be mean any one thing?

What

is that strange thing that a person can do in another language?
In some cases, an individual’s goal may be to be perceived as a good citizen. B: In some cases, a person’s goal may be to be perceived as a good citizen.

Only one meaning is possible, and short of a radical rewrite it’s difficult to avoid the repetition of “be” on “the”. What’s the basis of this, the fact that some people’s work is not that clumsy?

In OP’s example, we can separate the clashing components (long list of trivial adjustments)…

Officials believe it may be that more than one person is to be to blame for the fire.

Could someone be responsible for creating a fire

in Hawaii?

The most trivial change is to simply drop “to be”… Officials believe

that more than one person may be blamed for the fire.

In all cases there’s ambiguity as to whether may be/perhaps attaches uncertainty to the matter of whether there is one or more arsonists, or whether the arsonists in fact be blamed. Stylistically it would be pretty awful, but you could express both senses simultaneously with…

Officials believe that there might be more than one person responsible for the fire.

What is wrong with you saying, “this is your way of life,” just as if this is one of your first two thoughts. When will you answer?

Why do some answers, comments, etc. split heads about potentially framed and ambiguous differences about the right way we use may be and to be blamed?. Does missing to be mean any one thing?

What

is that strange thing that a person can do in another language?
In some cases, an individual’s goal may be to be perceived as a good citizen. B: In some cases, a person’s goal may be to be perceived as a good citizen.

Only one meaning is possible, and short of a radical rewrite it’s difficult to avoid the repetition of “be” on “the”. What’s the basis of this, the fact that some people’s work is not that clumsy?

In OP’s example, we can separate the clashing components (long list of trivial adjustments)…

Officials believe it may be that more than one person is to be to blame for the fire.

Could someone be responsible for creating a fire

in Hawaii?

The most trivial change is to simply drop “to be”… Officials believe

that more than one person may be blamed for the fire.

In all cases there’s ambiguity as to whether may be/perhaps attaches uncertainty to the matter of whether there is one or more arsonists, or whether the arsonists in fact be blamed. Stylistically it would be pretty awful, but you could express both senses simultaneously with…

Officials believe that there might be more than one person responsible for the fire.

What is wrong with you saying, “this is your way of life,” just as if this is one of your first two thoughts. When will you answer?

Why do some answers, comments, etc. split heads about potentially framed and ambiguous differences about the right way we use may be and to be blamed?. Does missing to be mean any one thing?

What

is that strange thing that a person can do in another language?
In some cases, an individual’s goal may be to be perceived as a good citizen. B: In some cases, a person’s goal may be to be perceived as a good citizen.

Only one meaning is possible, and short of a radical rewrite it’s difficult to avoid the repetition of “be” on “the”. What’s the basis of this, the fact that some people’s work is not that clumsy?

In OP’s example, we can separate the clashing components (long list of trivial adjustments)…

Officials believe it may be that more than one person is to be to blame for the fire.

Could someone be responsible for creating a fire

in Hawaii?

The most trivial change is to simply drop “to be”… Officials believe

that more than one person may be blamed for the fire.

In all cases there’s ambiguity as to whether may be/perhaps attaches uncertainty to the matter of whether there is one or more arsonists, or whether the arsonists in fact be blamed. Stylistically it would be pretty awful, but you could express both senses simultaneously with…

Officials believe that there might be more than one person responsible for the fire.

What is wrong with you saying, “this is your way of life,” just as if this is one of your first two thoughts. When will you answer?

Why do some answers, comments, etc. split heads about potentially framed and ambiguous differences about the right way we use may be and to be blamed?. Does missing to be mean any one thing?

What

is that strange thing that a person can do in another language?
In some cases, an individual’s goal may be to be perceived as a good citizen. B: In some cases, a person’s goal may be to be perceived as a good citizen.

Only one meaning is possible, and short of a radical rewrite it’s difficult to avoid the repetition of “be” on “the”. What’s the basis of this, the fact that some people’s work is not that clumsy?

In OP’s example, we can separate the clashing components (long list of trivial adjustments)…

Officials believe it may be that more than one person is to be to blame for the fire.

Could someone be responsible for creating a fire

in Hawaii?

The most trivial change is to simply drop “to be”… Officials believe

that more than one person may be blamed for the fire.

In all cases there’s ambiguity as to whether may be/perhaps attaches uncertainty to the matter of whether there is one or more arsonists, or whether the arsonists in fact be blamed. Stylistically it would be pretty awful, but you could express both senses simultaneously with…

Officials believe that there might be more than one person responsible for the fire.

What is wrong with you saying, “this is your way of life,” just as if this is one of your first two thoughts. When will you answer?

Why do some answers, comments, etc. split heads about potentially framed and ambiguous differences about the right way we use may be and to be blamed?. Does missing to be mean any one thing?

What

is that strange thing that a person can do in another language?
In some cases, an individual’s goal may be to be perceived as a good citizen. B: In some cases, a person’s goal may be to be perceived as a good citizen.

Only one meaning is possible, and short of a radical rewrite it’s difficult to avoid the repetition of “be” on “the”. What’s the basis of this, the fact that some people’s work is not that clumsy?

In OP’s example, we can separate the clashing components (long list of trivial adjustments)…

Officials believe it may be that more than one person is to be to blame for the fire.

Could someone be responsible for creating a fire

in Hawaii?

The most trivial change is to simply drop “to be”… Officials believe

that more than one person may be blamed for the fire.

In all cases there’s ambiguity as to whether may be/perhaps attaches uncertainty to the matter of whether there is one or more arsonists, or whether the arsonists in fact be blamed. Stylistically it would be pretty awful, but you could express both senses simultaneously with…

Officials believe that there might be more than one person responsible for the fire.

What is wrong with you saying, “this is your way of life,” just as if this is one of your first two thoughts. When will you answer?

Why do some answers, comments, etc. split heads about potentially framed and ambiguous differences about the right way we use may be and to be blamed?. Does missing to be mean any one thing?

What

is that strange thing that a person can do in another language?
In some cases, an individual’s goal may be to be perceived as a good citizen. B: In some cases, a person’s goal may be to be perceived as a good citizen.

Only one meaning is possible, and short of a radical rewrite it’s difficult to avoid the repetition of “be” on “the”. What’s the basis of this, the fact that some people’s work is not that clumsy?

In OP’s example, we can separate the clashing components (long list of trivial adjustments)…

Officials believe it may be that more than one person is to be to blame for the fire.

Could someone be responsible for creating a fire

in Hawaii?

The most trivial change is to simply drop “to be”… Officials believe

that more than one person may be blamed for the fire.

In all cases there’s ambiguity as to whether may be/perhaps attaches uncertainty to the matter of whether there is one or more arsonists, or whether the arsonists in fact be blamed. Stylistically it would be pretty awful, but you could express both senses simultaneously with…

Officials believe that there might be more than one person responsible for the fire.

What is wrong with you saying, “this is your way of life,” just as if this is one of your first two thoughts. When will you answer?

Why do some answers, comments, etc. split heads about potentially framed and ambiguous differences about the right way we use may be and to be blamed?. Does missing to be mean any one thing?

What

is that strange thing that a person can do in another language?
In some cases, an individual’s goal may be to be perceived as a good citizen. B: In some cases, a person’s goal may be to be perceived as a good citizen.

Only one meaning is possible, and short of a radical rewrite it’s difficult to avoid the repetition of “be” on “the”. What’s the basis of this, the fact that some people’s work is not that clumsy?

In OP’s example, we can separate the clashing components (long list of trivial adjustments)…

Officials believe it may be that more than one person is to be to blame for the fire.

Could someone be responsible for creating a fire

in Hawaii?

The most trivial change is to simply drop “to be”… Officials believe

that more than one person may be blamed for the fire.

In all cases there’s ambiguity as to whether may be/perhaps attaches uncertainty to the matter of whether there is one or more arsonists, or whether the arsonists in fact be blamed. Stylistically it would be pretty awful, but you could express both senses simultaneously with…

Officials believe that there might be more than one person responsible for the fire.

What is wrong with you saying, “this is your way of life,” just as if this is one of your first two thoughts. When will you answer?

Why do some answers, comments, etc. split heads about potentially framed and ambiguous differences about the right way we use may be and to be blamed?. Does missing to be mean any one thing?

What

is that strange thing that a person can do in another language?
In some cases, an individual’s goal may be to be perceived as a good citizen. B: In some cases, a person’s goal may be to be perceived as a good citizen.

Only one meaning is possible, and short of a radical rewrite it’s difficult to avoid the repetition of “be” on “the”. What’s the basis of this, the fact that some people’s work is not that clumsy?

In OP’s example, we can separate the clashing components (long list of trivial adjustments)…

Officials believe it may be that more than one person is to be to blame for the fire.

Could someone be responsible for creating a fire

in Hawaii?

The most trivial change is to simply drop “to be”… Officials believe

that more than one person may be blamed for the fire.

In all cases there’s ambiguity as to whether may be/perhaps attaches uncertainty to the matter of whether there is one or more arsonists, or whether the arsonists in fact be blamed. Stylistically it would be pretty awful, but you could express both senses simultaneously with…

Officials believe that there might be more than one person responsible for the fire.

What is wrong with you saying, “this is your way of life,” just as if this is one of your first two thoughts. When will you answer?

Why do some answers, comments, etc. split heads about potentially framed and ambiguous differences about the right way we use may be and to be blamed?. Does missing to be mean any one thing?

What

is that strange thing that a person can do in another language?
In some cases, an individual’s goal may be to be perceived as a good citizen. B: In some cases, a person’s goal may be to be perceived as a good citizen.

Only one meaning is possible, and short of a radical rewrite it’s difficult to avoid the repetition of “be” on “the”. What’s the basis of this, the fact that some people’s work is not that clumsy?

In OP’s example, we can separate the clashing components (long list of trivial adjustments)…

Officials believe it may be that more than one person is to be to blame for the fire.

Could someone be responsible for creating a fire

in Hawaii?

The most trivial change is to simply drop “to be”… Officials believe

that more than one person may be blamed for the fire.

In all cases there’s ambiguity as to whether may be/perhaps attaches uncertainty to the matter of whether there is one or more arsonists, or whether the arsonists in fact be blamed. Stylistically it would be pretty awful, but you could express both senses simultaneously with…

Officials believe that there might be more than one person responsible for the fire.

What is wrong with you saying, “this is your way of life,” just as if this is one of your first two thoughts. When will you answer?