[General] Now there are many rich people are native born.

[Silverobama]

Back in 1980s, my city Chongqing was an underdeveloped city. At that time, we didn't have many billionaires here. From that time on, my city develops very fast, especailly because of the impact of the open-up policy. Now, there are many rich people in my city and they're native Chongqing people. They were born here and became rich later. I usually say "Now there are many rich people in Chongqing" but I think it's not very clear. How about:

Chongqing born people are getting richer and richer.

Is the italic sentence natural?

 

[tedmc]

I think Chongqing-born people is not natural.
How about Chongqing natives?

 

[Silverobama]

I think Chongqing-born people is not natural.
How about Chongqing natives?

Good point, Ted.

"Chongqing natives are getting richer and richer".

Is the sentence natural? I still think "getting richer and richer" sounds like what an upstart might say but I can't think of a good one.

 

[emsr2d2]

Back in the 1980s, my city, Chongqing, was an underdeveloped city. At that time, we didn't have many billionaires here. [STRIKE]From that time on[/STRIKE] Since then, my city [STRIKE]develops[/STRIKE] has developed very fast, especially because of the impact of the "open-up policy". Now no comma here there are many rich people in my city. [STRIKE]and[/STRIKE] They're [STRIKE]native[/STRIKE] Chongqing [STRIKE]people[/STRIKE] natives and they [STRIKE]were born here and[/STRIKE] became rich later in life. I usually say "Now there are many rich people in Chongqing" but I think it's not very clear. How about:

Chongqing-born people are getting richer and richer.

Is the italic sentence natural?

Note my corrections above. With the hyphen, "Chongqing-born people" is OK but I also prefer "Chongqing natives". There's nothing wrong with "are getting richer and richer". I have no idea what you mean when you say you think it's something an "upstart" would say!

 

[Skrej]

I usually say "Now there are many rich people in Chongqing" but I think it's not very clear.

It's not that it's not clear - it's perfectly clear. It just doesn't specify where all these rich people are originally from.

 

[tedmc]

Due to the rapid development of my city, Chongqing, and the economic boom since the 1980's from China's Open Door Policy, many Chongqing natives have become billionnaires.

 

[Silverobama]

Note my corrections above. With the hyphen, "Chongqing-born people" is OK but I also prefer "Chongqing natives". There's nothing wrong with "are getting richer and richer". I have no idea what you mean when you say you think it's something an "upstart" would say!

I appreciate your help, emsr2d2. I was wondering if "richer and richer" are okay. I thought people who are rich here become rich overnight. Sounds like an upstart.

It's not that it's not clear - it's perfectly clear. It just doesn't specify where all these rich people are originally from.

Much appreciated. I want to combine "more and more Chongqing natives" and "have ample money" together. Please enlighten me on my new sentence:

There are more and more rich people who are Chongqing natives in Chongqing now.

 

[emsr2d2]

Please explain what your understanding of "upstart" is.

 

[Silverobama]

Please explain what your understanding of "upstart" is.

I think it means "people who become rich in a short span of time". When I said that sentence (Chongqing natives are getting richer and richer.), I wanted to say that "It seems that there are many upstarts in Chongqing". Sorry for the confusion. Is the sentence natural?

There are more and more rich people who are Chongqing natives in Chongqing now.

 

[Tdol]

Many Chonqing natives have made fortunes here.

 

[Silverobama]

Many Chonqing natives have made fortunes here.

Much appreciated, Tdol. No, that's not what I mean. I want to say that in the past, Chongqing natives are not rich. Now, due to the rapid development of the economy, they become rich. And more and more Chongqing natives are rich to lead a wealthy life.

I don't know how to express this in a sentence though.

 

[emsr2d2]

Much appreciated, Tdol. No, that's not what I mean. I want to say that in the past, Chongqing natives [STRIKE]are[/STRIKE] were not rich. Now, due to the rapid development of the economy, they have become rich. [STRIKE]And[/STRIKE] More and more Chongqing natives are [STRIKE]rich to lead a[/STRIKE] wealthy. [STRIKE]life.[/STRIKE]

I don't know how to express this in a sentence though.

See above. Keep it simple. People who were born in and stayed in Chongqing used not be rich but because of the rapid upturn in the economy, many of them now are.

 

[Tarheel]

Two things. I don't know what you mean by "an underdeveloped city".

Also:

They were born here and became rich later.

You seem to be saying there that they became rich after they were born. Is that what you mean to say, or do you mean something else?

 

[Silverobama]

See above. Keep it simple. People who were born in and stayed in Chongqing used not be rich but because of the rapid upturn in the economy, many of them now are.

I hate to disagree with you, my professional English teacher. However, is it natural to write your sentence as followed?

People who were born in and stayed in Chongqing used not to be rich but because of the rapid upturn in the economy, many of them now are.

I had this question when writing this sentence down in my notebook.

 

[emsr2d2]

Edit: It appears that I was taught this rule incorrectly as a child. I hope it makes learners feel better to know that even native speakers get it wrong sometimes!

No. When we use "used to + verb" in the negative, we remove "to".

He used to be rich.
He used not be rich.

She used to have long hair.
She used not have long hair.

They used to drink champagne.
They used not drink champagne.

 

[5jj]

No. When we use "used to + verb" in the negative, we remove "to".
.

I've encountered that with ought (to), but never with used (to).

 

[emsr2d2]

I've encountered that with ought (to), but never with used (to).

Interesting. I was taught to deal with them in the same way.

 

[5jj]

Swan and Huddleston & Pullum give examples of negative used only with to. Quirk et al specifically state that to is always used with used.

 

[emsr2d2]

Fair enough. I stand corrected. I've edited my previous post, rather than deleting all four of these posts, if only to show that native speakers can misunderstand the "rules"!

 

[Tdol]

Much appreciated, Tdol. No, that's not what I mean. I want to say that in the past, Chongqing natives are not rich. Now, due to the rapid development of the economy, they become rich. And more and more Chongqing natives are rich to lead a wealthy life.

I don't know how to express this in a sentence though.

Chongqing used to be a poor city, it has developed and now many Chonqing natives have made fortunes.