I am trying to understand whether the following sentences convey different meaning. If not, what is the role of ‘being’ in the first sentence?
[color=blue]1. Municipal bonds are generally regarded as being safe investments
2. Municipal bonds are generally regarded as safe investments
Both of the sentences mean exactly the same thing. Some linguists might say there’s a “covert” be in the second sentence and that in the first one it’s just included visibly, or it “surfaces”, as we say. We could therefore say (without any sarcasm) that the word being in the first sentence is playing the role of the invisible being in the second sentence.
The second sentence sounds more graceful to me, by the way.
Thanks. Then what is the difference bewteen ‘being safe investment’ and ’ safe investment’?
I can not say the following two sentences are the same.
[color=blue]1. ABC stock is being safe investment.
2. ABC stock is safe investment.
Also, can you please provide some links to pages explaining this topic more clearly?
Those two sentences are not the same, because #1 is ungrammatical, since it uses the present progressive tense with the verb “be” when it doesn’t describe an action.
The key is that in the original sentences you gave, the verb “being” was behind the preposition “as”. The only verb form that’s possible after a preposition is the gerund, and that’s why “be” in that sentence shows up as “being”.
Unfortunately, I don’t know any pages that explain it, because the alternation of “being” with nothing isn’t a major point, and I doubt any grammar site goes into it. It’s a job for a theoretical linguist.