08-29-2013, 07:57 AM
Your teacher would have taken some points off your paper, because it would not be considered grammatical usage of bright with rage.
Besides did you even read what I said originally?
rage bright, the 'bright' feels more like the result, the destination to arrive at.
suns become bright
That is correct linking verb usage.
Like I had originally said, bright is the end result.
If he wants it to modify the suns (as in, suns are bright), then correct usage is bright suns rage.
If you want "suns rage bright" to be "suns are bright", then we're not reading same meaning. Hence, we arrive at the reason for all those pesky grammar rules: to avoid confusion in meaning.
What does tectak want from the modification bright? They don't all mean the same thing.
Of course, I could also ask how would a star rage? Brightly seems to be already implied by using rage.
Besides did you even read what I said originally?
rage bright, the 'bright' feels more like the result, the destination to arrive at.
suns become bright
That is correct linking verb usage.
Like I had originally said, bright is the end result.
If he wants it to modify the suns (as in, suns are bright), then correct usage is bright suns rage.
If you want "suns rage bright" to be "suns are bright", then we're not reading same meaning. Hence, we arrive at the reason for all those pesky grammar rules: to avoid confusion in meaning.
What does tectak want from the modification bright? They don't all mean the same thing.
Of course, I could also ask how would a star rage? Brightly seems to be already implied by using rage.