Will flourish(ed)?
If there is a place in our English literature when you can just say ‘A young mind will flourish with the proper guidance’ and not just ” A young mind will be flourished with the proper guidance ” a young mind will flourish without major difference in meaning could you? Are these two sentences equal? How can they be prevented?
What is your opinion?
What occurs in “flourish”? , to grow and prosper) is an intransitive verb. Such verbs cannot be used in passive tense as they don’t take a direct object.
http://i.word.gov.uk/ir/fwy.htm. com/idictionary/flourish/text/flourish.com/default.aspx?lang=text
Is prosper in the sense of prosper an intransitive verb? What is that passive voice of Dolphin that can’t
be transposed into the passive voice of Dolphin? So in the active voice, you can say
The bullfighter flourished (active verb) a cape (direct object). For instance, a cowfighter does his jacket for that.
To transpose this into passive, make the direct object the new subject, make the new verb passive with a form of the verb “to be” as an auxiliary with the old verb; make the old subject the object of the preposition “by”: A
cape (subject) was flourished by the bullfighter.
Will be flourished” is equally stilted at worst. Proof is grammatically wrong at worst. By changing the passive voice you imply that someone else will perform the “flourishing” which doesn’t make much sense as it is the mind that flourishes. Is the flourishing a function of the internal process and in any good fashion that is?
So you could say “will be made to flourish” but that has a different meaning impling a more proactive approach to ensuring the mind flourishes.
I just realised one case where you might use “will be flourished”. Not that it’s not true for this particular application. In case you are using the sense of flourish “To make bold, sweeping movements” I suppose you could say “The flags will be flourished by the flag bearers at that time. “I think it still sounds really weird. You know
I heard this before.
